Live data from Hacker News

Don't rent the cloud, own instead

blog.comma.ai

141–150 of 516 posts

Re: Don't rent the cloud, own instead

#141
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the AWS part include the egress costs to extract your data from AWS, if you ever want to leave them?

AWS says they will waive all egress costs when exiting https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/free-data-transfer-out-to-i...

Because the EU forced them to

Re: Don't rent the cloud, own instead

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opex is faster. Login, click, SSH, get a tea. Capex needs work. A couple of years, at least. If you are willing to put in the work. Your mundane computer is always better than the shiny one you don't own.

That's because of company policies. An SME owner will buy a server and have it in the rack the next day. Of course creating a VM is still a teraform commit away (you're not using clickops in prod surely)

If you want something at all customized, it takes longer than that to receive the server. That being said, you can buy a server that will outperform anything the cloud can give you at much better cost.

Re: Don't rent the cloud, own instead

#143

This is an industry we're[0] in. Owning is at one end of the spectrum, with cloud at the other, and a broadly couple of options in-between: 1 - Cloud – This is minimising cap-ex, hiring, and risk, while largely maximising operational costs (its expensive) and cost variability (usage based). 2 - Managed Private Cloud - What we do. Still minimal-to-no cap-ex, hiring, risk, and medium-sized operational cost (around 50%…

Hetzner is definitely an interesting option. I’m a bit scared of managing the services on my own (like Postgres, Site2Site VPN, …) but the price difference makes it so appealing. From our financial models, Hetzner can win over AWS when you spend over 10~15K per month on infrastructure and you’re hiring really well. It’s still a risk, but a risk that definitely can be worthy.

I’m wondering if it makes sense to distribute your architecture so that workers who do most of the heavy lifting are in hetzner, while the other stuff is in costly AWS. On the other hand this means you don’t have easy access to S3, etc.

Re: Don't rent the cloud, own instead

#144
post #56

Am I the only one that is simply scared of running your own cloud? What happens if your administrator credentials get leaked? At least with Azure I can phone microsoft and initiate a recovery. Because of backups and soft deletion policies quite a lot is possible. I guess you can build in these failsafe scenarios locally too? But what if a fire happens like in South Korea? Sure most companies run more immediate risks…

Do you have a computer at home? Are you scared of its credentials leaking? A server is just another computer with a good internet connection.

You can equip your server with a mouse, keyboard and screen and then it doesn't even need credentials. The credential is your physical access to the mouse and keyboard.

Re: Don't rent the cloud, own instead

#145
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it wins because opex is seen as stable recurring cost and capex is seen as the money you put in your primary differentiation for long term gains.

Capex may also require you to take out loans

Which is incredibly difficult in the public sector. Yes, there are various financing instruments available for capital purchases but they're always annoying, slow and complicated. It's much easier to spend 5k per month than 500k outright.

Re: Don't rent the cloud, own instead

#146

This is an industry we're[0] in. Owning is at one end of the spectrum, with cloud at the other, and a broadly couple of options in-between: 1 - Cloud – This is minimising cap-ex, hiring, and risk, while largely maximising operational costs (its expensive) and cost variability (usage based). 2 - Managed Private Cloud - What we do. Still minimal-to-no cap-ex, hiring, risk, and medium-sized operational cost (around 50%…

Can someone explain 2 to me. How is a managed private cloud different from full cloud? Like you are still using AWS or Azure but you are keeping all your operation in a bundled, portable way, so you can leave that provider easily at any time, rather than becoming very dependent on them? Is it like staying provider-agnostic but still cloud based?

Re: Don't rent the cloud, own instead

#147
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hetzner is definitely an interesting option. I’m a bit scared of managing the services on my own (like Postgres, Site2Site VPN, …) but the price difference makes it so appealing. From our financial models, Hetzner can win over AWS when you spend over 10~15K per month on infrastructure and you’re hiring really well. It’s still a risk, but a risk that definitely can be worthy.

I’m wondering if it makes sense to distribute your architecture so that workers who do most of the heavy lifting are in hetzner, while the other stuff is in costly AWS. On the other hand this means you don’t have easy access to S3, etc.

networking costs are so high in AWS I doubt this makes sense

Re: Don't rent the cloud, own instead

#148
Working at a non-tech regional bigco, where ofc cloud is the default, I see everyday how AWS costs get out of hand, it's a constant struggle just to keep costs flat. In our case, the reality is that NONE of our services require scalability, and the main upside of high uptime is nice primarily for my blood pressure.. we only really need uptime during business hours, nobody cares what happens at night when everybody is sleeping.

On the other hand, there's significant vendor lockin, complexity, etc. And I'm not really sure we actually end up with less people over time, headcount always expands over time, and there's always cool new projects like monitoring, observability, AI, etc.

My feeling is, if we rented 20-30 chunky machines and ran Linux on them, with k8s, we'd be 80% there. For specific things I'd still use AWS, like infinite S3 storage, or RDS instances for super-important data.

If I were to do a startup, I would almost certainly not base it off AWS (or other cloud), I'd do what I write above: run chunky servers on OVH (initially just 1-2), and use specific AWS services like S3 and RDS.

A bit unrelated to the above, but I'd also try to keep away from expensive SaaS like Jira, Slack, etc. I'd use the best self-hosted open source version, and be done with it. I'd try Gitea for git hosting, Mattermost for team chat, etc.

And actually, given the geo-political situation as an EU citizen, maybe I wouldn't even put my data on AWS at all and self-host that as well...

Re: Don't rent the cloud, own instead

#149

This is an industry we're[0] in. Owning is at one end of the spectrum, with cloud at the other, and a broadly couple of options in-between: 1 - Cloud – This is minimising cap-ex, hiring, and risk, while largely maximising operational costs (its expensive) and cost variability (usage based). 2 - Managed Private Cloud - What we do. Still minimal-to-no cap-ex, hiring, risk, and medium-sized operational cost (around 50%…

#2.5ish

We rent hardware and also some VPS, as well as use AWS for cheap things such as S3 fronted with Cloudflare, and SES for priority emails.

We have other services we pay for, such as AI content detection, disposable email detection, a small postal email server, and more.

We're only a small business, so having predictable monthly costs is vital.

Our servers are far from maxed out, and we process ~4 million dynamic page and API requests per day.

Re: Don't rent the cloud, own instead

#150
Having worked only with the cloud I really wonder if these companies don't use other software with subscriptions. Even though AWS is "expensive" its a just another line item compared to most companies overall SaaS spend. Most businesses don't need that much compute or data transfer in the grand scheme of things.
Post reply on HN