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

151–160 of 168 posts

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

#151

Post by BrandoElFollito »

n4r9 wrote: post #79
grey-area wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the other hand when Google mail gies down, I am happy to be in yhe same boat as 2 B people, waiting for the page to refresh.

As opposed to be with the small provider round the corner who is currently having a beer and will look at that tomorrow morning.

Now - I am in the phase where I ap seriously considering to move my email from Google to a small player in Europe (still not sure who) so this is what may ultimately be my fate :)

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

#152

Post by BrandoElFollito »

jrk wrote: post #104
aurareturn wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that if AWS goes down, I know for a fact that it'll be back up without me doing anything. If my own dedicated server goes down, I'm going to need to call my admin at 3am 10 times just to wake him up.

You know that AWS will come back up. You definitely don’t know whether your own instances will come back or if you’ll need to redeploy it all.

Why do you assume that the small dedicated server has a higher probability to come back?

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

#153

Post by paranoidrobot »

Terretta wrote: post #134
paranoidrobot wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. For what it's worth - my day job does involve running a bunch of infrastructure on AWS. I know it's not good value, but that's the direction the organisation went long before I joined them. Previous companies I worked for had their infrastructure hosted with the likes of Rackspace, Softlayer, and others. Every now and then someone from management would come back from an AWS conf…

On the "value" question, it's worth considering why so many tech savvy firms with infra-as-code chops remain with GCP or AWS. It's unlikely, given how such firms work, they find no value in this. FWIW, I firmly believe non "cloud native" platforms should be hosted using PXE-booted bare metal withing the physical network constructs that cloud provider software-defined-network abstractions are designed to emulate.

Maybe instead of "good value" I should be saying "the cheapest option" or "lowest $/unit of compute"

For value here in this thread I'm definitely meaning monetary value.

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

#154

Post by refulgentis »

whstl wrote: post #89
refulgentis wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the least insightful comments I’ve seen in my 16 years here. “it’s because everyone here is dumb and knows it, and they are panicking and lying because they don’t want you to blow up their scam.”

I'm not calling anyone dumb. It is fine to not have experience with Hetzner or to have only with AWS. It's fine for someone to not know how to cook at home. About people who work with it, I'm just alluding to the famous quote "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it".

The motte:

- "I'm not calling anyone dumb."

- "I'm just alluding to the famous quote"

The bailey:

- "A lot of [Them] are making bank [and are] terrified of their skill set being made obsolete."

- "They have no idea what it means to use a dedicated server."

- "[They believe] bare-metal means “server room here in the office”"

FWIW, it definitely plays great: we all love to believe everyone who disagrees with us is ignorant, usually I'd upvote something like this and downvote a reply like mine, but this was so bad it hit an internal tripwire of "This is literally just a bunch of comments about They, where They is all the other comments."

You can easily play it off with "I didn't call other commenters DUMB, I just said they don't know a server is just a computer and they don't have to be in your office or in Amazon's data center to serve things!"

To riff on the famous quote you "just meant to allude to": "It is difficult to get an [interlocutor] to understand something [about their argumentation] when [they're playing to the crowd and being applauded]" I hope reading that gives you a sense of how strong of a contribution it is to discussion, as well as how well-founded it is, as well as what it implies.

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

#155

Post by bdangubic »

isoprophlex wrote: post #93
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 AWS bill suddenly spikes to $69k because some data science intern left a huge gpu backed EC2 instance running in ap-southeast-2 with a misconfigured auto-scaling group, and your CTO is at a "digital transformation" conference, and you have hundreds of angry investors asking why your burn rate tripled, you’ll get it. Or you need to debug why your Lambda function is throttling and you find out that the CloudW…

each rebuttal is about hiring shitty/icompetent people which also is same if you gonna manage your own (except of course much, much worse) - so not much or a rebuttal

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

#157

Post by array_key_first »

bdangubic wrote: post #155
isoprophlex wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When your AWS bill suddenly spikes to $69k because some data science intern left a huge gpu backed EC2 instance running in ap-southeast-2 with a misconfigured auto-scaling group, and your CTO is at a "digital transformation" conference, and you have hundreds of angry investors asking why your burn rate tripled, you’ll get it. Or you need to debug why your Lambda function is throttling and you find out that the CloudW…

each rebuttal is about hiring shitty/icompetent people which also is same if you gonna manage your own (except of course much, much worse) - so not much or a rebuttal

AWS facilitates the shittiness and incompetence because it, supposedly, handles all this stuff for you so you don't have to think about it.

Except - wait, you do have to think about, because of course you. So the promise of AWS is gone.

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

#158

Post by array_key_first »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #147
whstl wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AWS counts as managed servers with constant security monitoring. That's a huge difference to paying for a dedicated server where you're responsible for the installation and maintenance of the operating system and all software, intrusion detection and thread responses, and server monitoring. This has absolutely nothing to do with "georedundancy" or "physical security" or "electricity".

The point is that the comparison is rubbish because Amazon offers way more than Hetzner. If you compare apples with oranges, you get the result that they're different, and that's the gist of the video we're talking about. I'll spare you a car analogy since I'm sure you understand what I'm saying without one. Companies choose Amazon AWS because having peace of mind and contracting out liability is worth the price. It'…

Offering way more doesn't mean it's necessarily worth it. If that 'way more' is not so valuable, then it doesn't matter.

It's a lot like the old Mac comparisons of days old. Well you see, the 5K iMac is actually a good value, because a 5K monitor costs 1500 dollars! Okay... but a 4k monitor doesn't, and it's almost the same thing.

Amazon markets itself as competitive by doing the whole 'you have to compare apples to apples' thing. But do you want the apples? Will you eat them? Any product can make itself seem like a good value when it throws in a bunch of stuff you'll never use.

This is one of the most common sales tactics out there. Go to a car dealership, and they'll talk your ear off about the amazing!!1 dealership addons. Whooaaa dude it's such a good value, look you get an oil change coupon and this stripe painted on your door!! Those other dealerships don't give you that, you gotta factor that in man!

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

#159

Post by graemep »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #148
graemep wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people do use AWS for EC2. Of the services you list, S3 is OK. I would rather admin an RDBMS than use RDS at small scale > Large enough customers also don't pay list price for AWS. At that scale the cost savings on not hiring sysadmins becomes much smaller, so what is the case for using AWS? The absolute cost savings will be huge.

In absolute numbers maybe it's a lot, but I doubt even 10% are EC2 only. Even "only" ECS users often benefit from load balancing there. Other clouds sometimes have their own (Hetzner), but generally it's kind of a hard problem to do well, if you don't have a cloud service like Elastic IP's that you can use to handle fail over. Generally everywhere I've worked has been pretty excited to have a lot more than just ecs m…

>Even "only" ECS users often benefit from load balancing there. Other clouds sometimes have their own (Hetzner), but generally it's kind of a hard problem to do well, if you don't have a cloud service like Elastic IP's that you can use to handle fail over.

Pretty much everyone offers load balancing and IPs that can be moved between servers and VPSs. Even if you have to switch to new IPs DNS propagation will not take as long as waiting out an AWS shutdown.

10% of what? Users, instances/capacity...? If its users then its a lot higher because it it gets commoner the smaller users are.

> There's still a strong perception that other people managing services is a wonderful freedom.

The argument is really about whether that is a perception of a reality. If you can fit everything on one box (which is a LOT these days) then its easy to manage your own stuff. if you cannot you are probably big enough to employ people to manage it (which is discussed in other comments) and you still have to deal with the complexity of AWS (also discussed elsewhere in the comments).

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

#160

Post by whstl »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #147
whstl wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AWS counts as managed servers with constant security monitoring. That's a huge difference to paying for a dedicated server where you're responsible for the installation and maintenance of the operating system and all software, intrusion detection and thread responses, and server monitoring. This has absolutely nothing to do with "georedundancy" or "physical security" or "electricity".

The point is that the comparison is rubbish because Amazon offers way more than Hetzner. If you compare apples with oranges, you get the result that they're different, and that's the gist of the video we're talking about. I'll spare you a car analogy since I'm sure you understand what I'm saying without one. Companies choose Amazon AWS because having peace of mind and contracting out liability is worth the price. It'…

Don't double down and change the tune when you say rubbish.

Don't go around saying that you have to worry about "physical security" or "electricity" just because you didn't buy AWS. You definitely don't have to worry when you use Hetzner.

Post reply on HN