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

Migrating from DigitalOcean to Hetzner

isayeter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 454 posts

Re: Migrating from DigitalOcean to Hetzner

#191

Post by DaedalusII »

alternatex wrote: post #160
acdha wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s like saying Mercedes is a scam because you’re fine with a Honda Civic. It’s a totally legitimate preference but not being in the target market doesn’t make something a scam.

AWS ain't no Mercedes. Mercedes feels premium and isn't full of bugs. AWS and Azure a charging an arm and a leg, but the offered quality is mostly perceived. Most of the bits and bobs they charge for are not providing much value for a vast majority of businesses. I won't even go over the complete lack of ergonomics with their portals.

mercedes and honda interior almost indistinguishable now

and mercedes is just like aws in dumb charges. new tires, EUR1000+ for set. replace car keys? EUR1000+

Re: Migrating from DigitalOcean to Hetzner

#192

Post by jijijijij »

grey-area wrote: post #134
mariopt wrote: post #128

Every time I see this kind of article, no one really bothers about sb/server redundancy, load balancers, etc. are we ok with just 1 big server that may fail and bring several services down? You saved a lot of money but you'll spend a lot of time in maintenance and future headaches.

It depends on the service and how critical that website is. Sometimes it's completely acceptable that a server will run for 10 years with say 1 week or 1 month of downtime spread over those 10 years, yes. That's the sort of uptime you can see with single servers that are rarely changed and over-provisioned as many on Hetzner are. Some examples: Small businesses where the website is not core to operations and is more…

I feel like 95% of the web falls into this category. Like, have you ever said "That's it, I am never gonna visit this page again!", because of temporary downtime? Unless you are Amazon and every minute costs you bazillions, you are likely gonna get the better deal not worrying about availability and scalability. That 250€/m root server is a behemoth. Complete overkill for most anything. As a bonus, you are gonna be half the internet, when someone at AWS or Cloudflare touches DNS.

Re: Migrating from DigitalOcean to Hetzner

#193

Post by j45 »

Aurornis wrote: post #149
mariopt wrote: post #128

Every time I see this kind of article, no one really bothers about sb/server redundancy, load balancers, etc. are we ok with just 1 big server that may fail and bring several services down? You saved a lot of money but you'll spend a lot of time in maintenance and future headaches.

These articles are popular where there's a mismatch between application requirements and the solution chosen. When someone over-engineers their architecture to be enterprise-grade (substitute your own definition of enterprise-grade) when really they were running a hobby project or a small business where a day of downtime every once in a while just means your customers will come back the next day, going all-out on clo…

Downtime is a strawman.

Clever architecture will always beat cleverly trying to pick only one cloud.

Being cloud agnostic is best.

This means setting up a private cloud.

Hosted servers, and managed servers are perfectly capable of near zero downtime. this is because it's the same equipment (or often more consumer grade) that the "cloud" works on and plans for even more failure.

Digital Ocean definitely does not guarantee zero downtime. That's a lot of 9's.

It's simple to run well established tools like Proxmox on bare metal that will do everything Digital Ocean promises, and it's not susceptible to attacks, or exploits where the shared memory and CPU usage will leak what customers believe is their private VPS.

Nothing ever failing in the case of a tool like Proxmox is, install it on two servers, one VPS exists on both nodes (you connect both servers as nodes), click high availability, and it's generally up and running. Put cloudflare in front of it like the best preference practices of today.

If you're curious about this, there's some pretty eye opening and short videos on Proxmox available on Youtube that are hard to unsee.

Re: Migrating from DigitalOcean to Hetzner

#194

Post by Gud »

mariopt wrote: post #128

Every time I see this kind of article, no one really bothers about sb/server redundancy, load balancers, etc. are we ok with just 1 big server that may fail and bring several services down? You saved a lot of money but you'll spend a lot of time in maintenance and future headaches.

What time in maintenance? Hetzner has been rock solid for me.

Re: Migrating from DigitalOcean to Hetzner

#195

Post by dwedge »

MikeNotThePope wrote: post #141
rdevilla wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole internet is like this now, and it's only just getting started. Makes me sick tbh, and I am still questioning if this is the kind of industry I want to work in.

For those who remember Digg, the recently relaunched a new version and shut it down almost immediately. They were getting hammered with AI bots when it was realized the Digg apparently still has good SEO. The explain it right on homepage. https://digg.com/

They explained it with an AI generated post

Re: Migrating from DigitalOcean to Hetzner

#196

Post by grey-area »

j45 wrote: post #172
grey-area wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the service and how critical that website is. Sometimes it's completely acceptable that a server will run for 10 years with say 1 week or 1 month of downtime spread over those 10 years, yes. That's the sort of uptime you can see with single servers that are rarely changed and over-provisioned as many on Hetzner are. Some examples: Small businesses where the website is not core to operations and is more…

Respectfully, this type of "high availability" strawman is a dated take. This is a general response to it. I have run hosting on bare metal for millions of users a day. Tens of thousdands of concurrent connections. It can scale way up by doing the same thing you do in a cloud, provision more resources. For "downtime" you do the same thing with metal, as you do with digital ocean, just get a second server and have the…

I'm not arguing for cloud or against bare metal hosting, just saying there is a broad range of requirements in hosting and not everyone needs or wants load balancers etc - it clearly will cost more than this particular poster wants to pay as they want to pay the bare minimum to host quite a large setup.

Re: Migrating from DigitalOcean to Hetzner

#197

Post by jgalt212 »

mariopt wrote: post #128

Every time I see this kind of article, no one really bothers about sb/server redundancy, load balancers, etc. are we ok with just 1 big server that may fail and bring several services down? You saved a lot of money but you'll spend a lot of time in maintenance and future headaches.

Hetzner has cheap load balancers and VMs.

Re: Migrating from DigitalOcean to Hetzner

#198

Post by grey-area »

BorisMelnik wrote: post #189
rzz3 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What struck me though is that OP did so much work to migrare the server with zero downtime. The _single_ big server. Something’s off here.

to be fair a lot of ppl still run this way and just have really good backups, or have an offline / truly on-prep server where they can flip the dns switch in case of true outage.

Yes and for many services that is totally fine. As long as you have backups of data and can redeploy easily. It's not how I personally do things usually but there is definitely a place for it.

Re: Migrating from DigitalOcean to Hetzner

#199

Post by leros »

raphinou wrote: post #98

Am I missing something? I'm genuinely surprised it was not deployed from the start on a dedicated server. Don't you make a cost analysis before deploy? And if the cost analysis was ok at initial deploy, why wait to have such a difference in cost before migrating? How much money goes wasted in such situations?

Managed services have value. It's less to set up, less to maintain, and less worrying about waking up at 3am when something breaks.

I've spent time eating the costs of things like DigitalOcean or SaaS products because my time is better spent growing my revenue than reducing infrastructure costs. But at some point, costs can grow large enough that's it's worthwhile to shift focus to reducing infrastructure spend.

Re: Migrating from DigitalOcean to Hetzner

#200

Post by neya »

mariopt wrote: post #128

Every time I see this kind of article, no one really bothers about sb/server redundancy, load balancers, etc. are we ok with just 1 big server that may fail and bring several services down? You saved a lot of money but you'll spend a lot of time in maintenance and future headaches.

I was thinking the same. A managed database is just set and forget pretty much. I do NOT miss the old times where I had to monitor my email from routine security checkups hoping my database didn't get hacked by some script kiddie accompanied by blackmail over email.
Post reply on HN