Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We cut our Mongo DB costs by 90% by moving to Hetzner

prosopo.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 214 posts

Re: We cut our Mongo DB costs by 90% by moving to Hetzner

#91

Post by cmrdporcupine »

righthand wrote: post #33
ianberdin wrote: post #27

I’m starting to worry about this Hetzner trend. It can end up to get the price skyrocketing.

We’re just going to end up with everyone moving from Amazon to Hetzner and the same issue will remain. High prices, lockin, etc will appear. We need an American “get off American big tech” movement. Differentiate people! Reading “we moved from X to Y” does not mean everyone move from X to Y, it means start considering the Y values and research other Y’s around you.

> We need an American “get off American big tech” movement.

As a non-American, I use Hetzner precisely to have my projects not hosted anywhere near the US.

Re: We cut our Mongo DB costs by 90% by moving to Hetzner

#92

Post by PenguinCoder »

dspillett wrote: post #81
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #17

> Here's how we managed to cut our costs by 90% You could cut your MongoDB costs by 100% by not using it ;) > without sacrificing performance or reliability. You're using a single server in a single datacenter. MongoDB Atlas is deployed to VMs on 2-3 AZs. You don't have close to the same reliability. (I'm also curious why their M40 instance costs $1000, when the Pricing Calculator ( https://www.mongodb.com/pricing )…

> You're using a single server in a single datacenter. This is a common problem with “bare metal saved us $000/mo” articles. Bare metal is cheaper than cloud by any measure, but the comparisons given tend to be misleadingly exaggerated as they don't compare like-for-like in terms of redundancy and support, and after considering those factors it can be a much closer result (sometimes down as far as familiarity and per…

Premature optimization. Not every single service needs or require 5 nines.

Re: We cut our Mongo DB costs by 90% by moving to Hetzner

#93

Post by lewiscollard »

MaKey wrote: post #89
mads_quist wrote: post #57

OK guys, running on a single instance is REALLY a BAD IDEA for non-pet-projects. Really bad! Change it as fast as you can. I love Hetzner for what they offer but you will run into huge outages pretty soon. At least you need two different network zones on Hetzner and three servers. It's not hard to setup, but you need to do it.

I think you're being overly dramatic. In practice I've seen complexity (which HA setups often introduce) causing downtimes far more often than a service being hosted only on a single instance.

Yes, any time someone says "I'm going to make a thing more reliable by adding more things to it" I either want to buy them a copy of Normal Accidents or hit them over the head with mine.

Re: We cut our Mongo DB costs by 90% by moving to Hetzner

#94

Post by koakuma-chan »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #17

> Here's how we managed to cut our costs by 90% You could cut your MongoDB costs by 100% by not using it ;) > without sacrificing performance or reliability. You're using a single server in a single datacenter. MongoDB Atlas is deployed to VMs on 2-3 AZs. You don't have close to the same reliability. (I'm also curious why their M40 instance costs $1000, when the Pricing Calculator ( https://www.mongodb.com/pricing )…

> You could cut your MongoDB costs by 100% by not using it ;)

I cut my Mongo DB costs by 100% by piping my data to /dev/null.

Re: We cut our Mongo DB costs by 90% by moving to Hetzner

#95

Post by philote »

koakuma-chan wrote: post #94
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #17

> Here's how we managed to cut our costs by 90% You could cut your MongoDB costs by 100% by not using it ;) > without sacrificing performance or reliability. You're using a single server in a single datacenter. MongoDB Atlas is deployed to VMs on 2-3 AZs. You don't have close to the same reliability. (I'm also curious why their M40 instance costs $1000, when the Pricing Calculator ( https://www.mongodb.com/pricing )…

> You could cut your MongoDB costs by 100% by not using it ;) I cut my Mongo DB costs by 100% by piping my data to /dev/null.

https://github.com/dcramer/mangodb

Re: We cut our Mongo DB costs by 90% by moving to Hetzner

#96

Post by kdazzle »

goastler wrote: post #43
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #17

> Here's how we managed to cut our costs by 90% You could cut your MongoDB costs by 100% by not using it ;) > without sacrificing performance or reliability. You're using a single server in a single datacenter. MongoDB Atlas is deployed to VMs on 2-3 AZs. You don't have close to the same reliability. (I'm also curious why their M40 instance costs $1000, when the Pricing Calculator ( https://www.mongodb.com/pricing )…

> you're going to have multiple outages us: 0, aws: 1. Looking good so far ;) > AND incur more cross-internet costs hetzner have no bandwidth traffic limit (only speed) on the machine, we can go nuts. I understand you point wrt the cloud, but I spend as much time debugging/building a cloud deployment (atlas :eyes: ) as I do a self-hosted solution. Aws gives you all the tools to build a super reliable data store, but…

I’m curious about the resilience bit. Are you planning on some sort of active-active setup with mongo? I found it difficult on AWS to even do active-passive (i guess that was docdb), since programatically changing the primary write node instance was kind of a pain when failing over to a new region.

Going into any depth with mongo mostly taught me to just stick with postgres.

Re: We cut our Mongo DB costs by 90% by moving to Hetzner

#97

Post by niffydroid »

Having run a small mongo database and having it hosted in 3 different places at one point. The last point was atlas, yes it was expensive but we got replication, we could have an analytical node, we even had data residency. If I remember correctly you can have your replicas in different providers at the same time.

One of the biggest issues was cost, but we were treated like first class citizens, the support was good, we saw constant updates and features. Using atlas search was fantastic because we didn't have to replicate the data to another resource for quick searching.

Before atlas we were on Compose.io and well mongo there just withered and we were plagued by performance issues

Re: We cut our Mongo DB costs by 90% by moving to Hetzner

#98

Post by [deleted] »

dspillett wrote: post #81
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #17

> Here's how we managed to cut our costs by 90% You could cut your MongoDB costs by 100% by not using it ;) > without sacrificing performance or reliability. You're using a single server in a single datacenter. MongoDB Atlas is deployed to VMs on 2-3 AZs. You don't have close to the same reliability. (I'm also curious why their M40 instance costs $1000, when the Pricing Calculator ( https://www.mongodb.com/pricing )…

> You're using a single server in a single datacenter. This is a common problem with “bare metal saved us $000/mo” articles. Bare metal is cheaper than cloud by any measure, but the comparisons given tend to be misleadingly exaggerated as they don't compare like-for-like in terms of redundancy and support, and after considering those factors it can be a much closer result (sometimes down as far as familiarity and per…

[deleted]

Re: We cut our Mongo DB costs by 90% by moving to Hetzner

#99

Post by kdazzle »

tgv wrote: post #60
cpursley wrote: post #42

Why in the world do people choose Mongo over Postgres? I'm legit curious. Is it inexperience? Javascript developers who don't know backend or proper data modeling (or about jsonb)? Is this type of decision coming down from non-technical management? Are VCs telling their portfolio companies what to use so they have something to burn their funding on? It's just really confounding, especially when there's even mongo-api…

I'll repeat it again: you don't always want a relational database. Sometimes you need a document-oriented one. It matches quite a lot of use cases, e.g. when there aren't really interesting relations, or when the structures are very deep. That can be really annoying in SQL. > when there's even mongo-api compatible Postgres solutions With their own drawbacks.

I'd probably use a jsonfield in postgres for data that i knew was going to be unstructured. meanwhile, other columns can join and have decent constraints and indexes.

Re: We cut our Mongo DB costs by 90% by moving to Hetzner

#100

Post by withinboredom »

PenguinCoder wrote: post #92
dspillett wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're using a single server in a single datacenter. This is a common problem with “bare metal saved us $000/mo” articles. Bare metal is cheaper than cloud by any measure, but the comparisons given tend to be misleadingly exaggerated as they don't compare like-for-like in terms of redundancy and support, and after considering those factors it can be a much closer result (sometimes down as far as familiarity and per…

Premature optimization. Not every single service needs or require 5 nines.

and each additional nine increases complexity geometrically.
Post reply on HN