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

71–80 of 168 posts

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

#71

Post by spiderfarmer »

paranoidrobot wrote: post #36

I'm struggling to find a way to express my opinion about this video without seeming like a complete ass. If the author's point was to make a low effort "ha ha AWS sucks" video, well sure: success, I guess. Nobody outside of AWS sales is going to say AWS is cheaper. But comparing the lowest end instances, and apparently, using ECS without seeming to understand how they're configuring or using it just makes their point…

This comment comes across as someone who is either trying to flog AWS to customers or someone who has to justify a job that depends on AWS.

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

#72

Post by kachapopopow »

danpalmer wrote: post #3

S3 is also 10x more expensive than this single consumer grade second hand hard drive I have. Managed NAT gateways are also 10000x more expensive than my router. This is a boring argument that has been done to death.

nat gateways not being free is criminal.

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

#73

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

paranoidrobot wrote: post #36

I'm struggling to find a way to express my opinion about this video without seeming like a complete ass. If the author's point was to make a low effort "ha ha AWS sucks" video, well sure: success, I guess. Nobody outside of AWS sales is going to say AWS is cheaper. But comparing the lowest end instances, and apparently, using ECS without seeming to understand how they're configuring or using it just makes their point…

> "you're holding it wrong" for x10 the price

Ooof. Not a good look.

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

#74

Post by aurareturn »

oersted wrote: post #68
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 $…

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…

I'm a geek and I like to tinker with hardware. I want to maximum my $/hardware and have built a ton of DIY computers myself since I was young. I'm all about getting the most hardware for the money.

But I'd like to sleep at night and the cost of AWS is not a significant issue to the business.

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

#76

Post by Mashimo »

3ds wrote: post #16

Why is this a video? I'm not going to watch it. I will read the AI summary of the transcript though: The video argues that AWS is dramatically overpriced and underpowered compared to cheap VPS or dedicated servers. Using Sysbench benchmarks, the creator shows that a low-cost VPS outperforms AWS EC2 and ECS by large margins (EC2 has ~20% of the VPS’s CPU performance while costing 3× more; ECS costs 6× more with only m…

> Why is this a video? I'm not going to watch it.

There have also been a couple of thread in text based form about the same topic. Some like text, some like video.

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

#77

Post by mrtksn »

IIRC, when the cloud services were taking over the argument was that it’s much cheaper to pay for the AWS than paying engineers to handle the servers. This was also a popular argument for running an unoptimized code(i.e. it’s much cheaper to run two servers instead of making your code twice as fast).

Since the industry has matured now, there must be a lot of opportunity to optimize code and run it on bare metal to make systems dramatically faster and dramatically cheaper.

If you think about it, the algorithms that we run to deliver products are actually not that complicated and most of the code is about accommodating developers with layers upon layers of abstraction.

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

#78

Post by aurareturn »

bjourne wrote: post #69
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 $…

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.

Nothing. It's just that I'm not the one responsible to fix it at 3am.

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

#79

Post by n4r9 »

grey-area wrote: post #44
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 $…

It is statistically far more likely that your cloud service will go down for hours or days, and you will have no recourse and will just have to wait till AWS manage to resolve it.

I suspect that this is really about liability. When AWS goes down you can just throw up your hands, everyone's in the same boat. If your own server goes down you worry that your customers doubt your competence.

It's actually kinda frustrating - as an industry we're accepting worse outcomes due to misperceptions. That's how the free market goes sometimes.

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

#80

Post by h_ko »

adamcharnock wrote: post #57

This is exactly true, and is something we have built our business around. In fact, I just kicked-off a multi-TiB Postgres migration for one of our clients this morning. We're moving them out of Supabase and onto a bare-metal multi-AZ Postgresql cluster in Hetzner. I'm going to say what I always say here - for so many SME's the hyperscaler cloud provider has been the safe default choice. But as time goes on a few thin…

Just curious: Did you move to self-hosted Supabase? Or migrated to the underlying OSS equivalents for each feature/service?

I find Supabase immensely helpful to minimize overhead in the beginning, but would love to better understand where it starts breaking and how hard an eventual migration would be.

Post reply on HN