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

AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 168 posts

Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]

#61

Post by aurareturn »

esseph wrote: post #43
aurareturn wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When your cheap dedicated server goes down and your admin is on holiday and you have hundreds of angry customers calling you, you'll get it. Or you need to restore your Postgres database and you find out that the backups didn't work. And finally you have a brilliant idea of hiring a second $150k/year dev ops admin so that at least one is always working and they can check each other's work. Suddenly, you're spending $…

Sure, but AWS has more downtime than I do :-)

Yes but you go on holidays but AWS does not.

Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]

#62

Post by whstl »

auggierose wrote: post #23
whstl wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people cleaning and keeping the café warm are your Ops team. AWS is just an extremely expensive Lidl. EDIT: autocorrect typo, coffee to café

He means the location, not the fluid. My coffee better be hot, not warm.

Typo.

Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]

#63

Post by aurareturn »

juliusceasar wrote: post #51
aurareturn wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When your cheap dedicated server goes down and your admin is on holiday and you have hundreds of angry customers calling you, you'll get it. Or you need to restore your Postgres database and you find out that the backups didn't work. And finally you have a brilliant idea of hiring a second $150k/year dev ops admin so that at least one is always working and they can check each other's work. Suddenly, you're spending $…

When your system goes down on AWS and your AWS admin is on holiday, you'll have the same problem. What is your point?

I don't have an AWS admin. I assume a $2.4 trillion dollar company always has dev ops on call?

Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]

#64

Post by h33t-l4x0r »

continuational wrote: post #42
mgaunard wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What AWS gives you is the ability to spin up dozens if not thousands of hosts in a single click. If you run your own hardware, getting stuff shipped to a datacenter and installed is 2 to 4 weeks (and potentially much longer based on how efficient your pipeline is)

But on Hetzner, you can usually get a dedicated server installed and ready tomorrow.

Hetzner is oversold. It's not appropriate for production in the same sense that EC2 obviously is. It's fine for staging though.

Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]

#66

Post by wink »

juliusceasar wrote: post #51
aurareturn wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When your cheap dedicated server goes down and your admin is on holiday and you have hundreds of angry customers calling you, you'll get it. Or you need to restore your Postgres database and you find out that the backups didn't work. And finally you have a brilliant idea of hiring a second $150k/year dev ops admin so that at least one is always working and they can check each other's work. Suddenly, you're spending $…

When your system goes down on AWS and your AWS admin is on holiday, you'll have the same problem. What is your point?

Every team I have worked on so far, if using AWS you had 50-100% of the developers with the knowledge and credentials (and usually the confidence) to troubleshoot/just fix it/replace it.

Every team with dedicated hardware in a data center it was generally 1-2 people who would have fixed stuff quickly, no matter the size of the company (small ones, of course - so 10-50 devs). And that's with available replacement hardware.

I'm not even one of the "cloud is so great" people - but it you're generally doing software it's actually a lot less friction.

And while the ratio of cost difference may sound bad, it's generally not. Unless we're talkign huge scale, you can buy a lot of AWS crap for the yearly salary of a single person.

Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]

#67

Post by mgaunard »

noir_lord wrote: post #58
mgaunard wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What AWS gives you is the ability to spin up dozens if not thousands of hosts in a single click. If you run your own hardware, getting stuff shipped to a datacenter and installed is 2 to 4 weeks (and potentially much longer based on how efficient your pipeline is)

Which is an awesome capability, if you need it . I suspect that if you broke projects on AWS down by the numbers, the vast majority don't needed it. There are other benefits to using AWS (and drawbacks) bit "easy scaling" isn't just premature optimisation because if you build something to do something it's never going to do that's not optimisation it's simply waste.

They need it at the beginning to get started quickly, then they don't but don't bother moving out.

Not too different from how many other lines of business get their clients in the door.

Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]

#68

Post by oersted »

aurareturn wrote: post #34
oersted wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a CTO of a number of small startups, I am still struggling to understand what exactly AWS and other cloud providers give you to justify the markup. And yes we’ve been heavy users of both AWS and Google Cloud for years, mainly because of the credits they initially provided, but also used VMs, dedicated servers and other services from Hetzner and OVH extensively. In my experience, in terms of availability and securi…

When your cheap dedicated server goes down and your admin is on holiday and you have hundreds of angry customers calling you, you'll get it. Or you need to restore your Postgres database and you find out that the backups didn't work. And finally you have a brilliant idea of hiring a second $150k/year dev ops admin so that at least one is always working and they can check each other's work. Suddenly, you're spending $…

After 8 years operating like this, I have had approximately the same number of critical outages in standard Cloud as with these providers.

One included a whole OVH building burning down with our server in it, and recovery was faster than the recent AWS and Cloudflare outages. We felt less impotent and we could do more to mitigate the situation.

If you want to, these providers also offer VMs, object storage and other virtualized services for way cheaper with similar guarantees, they are not stuck in the last century.

And I don’t know how people are using cloud, but most config issues happen above the VM/Docker/Kubernetes level, which is the same wether you are on cloud or not. Even fully managed database deployments or serverless backends are not really that much simpler or less error-prone than deploying the containers yourself. Actually the complexity of Cloud is often a worse minefield of footguns, with their myriad artificial quirks and limitations. Often dealing with the true complexities of the underlying open-source technologies they are reselling ends up being easier and more predictable.

This fearmongering is really weakening us as an industry. Just try it, it is not as complex or dangerous as they claim.

Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]

#69

Post by bjourne »

aurareturn wrote: post #34
oersted wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a CTO of a number of small startups, I am still struggling to understand what exactly AWS and other cloud providers give you to justify the markup. And yes we’ve been heavy users of both AWS and Google Cloud for years, mainly because of the credits they initially provided, but also used VMs, dedicated servers and other services from Hetzner and OVH extensively. In my experience, in terms of availability and securi…

When your cheap dedicated server goes down and your admin is on holiday and you have hundreds of angry customers calling you, you'll get it. Or you need to restore your Postgres database and you find out that the backups didn't work. And finally you have a brilliant idea of hiring a second $150k/year dev ops admin so that at least one is always working and they can check each other's work. Suddenly, you're spending $…

What prevents an EC2 instance from going down in exactly the same way? Other hosting providers offer automatic backup too - it's not an AWS exclusive feature.

Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]

#70

Post by mgaunard »

tempestn wrote: post #56
mgaunard wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What AWS gives you is the ability to spin up dozens if not thousands of hosts in a single click. If you run your own hardware, getting stuff shipped to a datacenter and installed is 2 to 4 weeks (and potentially much longer based on how efficient your pipeline is)

If you own your own hardware, but you can provision a leased dedicated server from many different providers in an hour or three, and still pay far less than for comparable hardware from AWS.

That sounds like a good deal, what providers offer this?
Post reply on HN