221–230 of 454 posts
This is something we've[0] done a number of times for customers coming from various cloud providers. In our case we move customers onto a multi-server (sometimes multi-AZ) deployment in Hetzner, using Kubernetes to distribute workloads across servers and provide HA. Kubernetes is likely a lot for a single node deployment such as the OP, but it makes a lot more sense as soon as multiple nodes are involved. For backups…
High availability, in case anyone else was wondering.
If you’re migrating a large MySQL database and you’re not using mydumper/myloader, you’re doing it the hard way. If you aren't using xtrabackup you are doing it wrong. I recently migrated a database with 2TB of data from 5.7 to 8.4 with about 15 seconds of down time. It wouldn't have been possible without xtrabackup. Mysqldumper requires a global write block, I wouldn't call blocking writes for hours a "zero downtime…
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.
Dealing with over engineered bullshit, that behaved in strange ways that disrupted the service was far more often a problem.
So, yes, redundancy is something that can be left away, if you're comfortable to be responsible for fixing things at a Saturday morning.
I moved two servers, one from Linode and the other from DO to Hetzner a few months ago, with similar savings. The best part was that the two servers had tens of different sites running, implemented in different languages, with obsolete libraries, MySQL and Redis instances. A total mess. Well: Claude Code migrated it all, sometimes rewriting parts when the libraries where no longer available. Today complex migrations…
Wow a Claude add embedded into a Hetzner add. How deep does this go?
If I remember correctly (it has been a while since I looked), Hetzner although is a lot cheaper on the price sheet, they're European region by default and then if you look to get US region servers at Hetzner, the pricing is a lot higher and similar to Digital Ocean. Is that still the case? For OP though who is a Turkey-based company and want European region servers anyway, it might make sense.
I think Hetzner makes most sense (for myself, and OP seemingly too) because they have dedicated servers, and they're in Europe. Extra bonus is the unmetered connection, but primarily just good and cheap servers :)
> 30 MySQL databases (248 GB of data) > 34 Nginx virtual hosts across multiple domains > GitLab EE (42 GB backup) > Neo4J Graph DB (30 GB graph database) > Supervisor managing dozens of background workers > Gearman job queue > Several live mobile apps serving hundreds of thousands of users He's doing all of that on a single server?! I'm not against vertical scaling and stuff, but 30 db instances in one server is just…
It's an average of 8GB per database, I guess he serves multiple clients and decided to "segregate" each client on its instance. If it's acceptable for the business it's nothing wrong with his setup.
It seems like he's having a database for each app.
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…
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 h…
Spot on! People still go to Chick-fil-A, even if they are closed on Sundays!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 h…
> Like, have you ever said "That's it, I am never gonna visit this page again!", because of temporary downtime? That's a strawman version of what happens. There have been times when I've tried to visit a webshop to buy something but the site was broken or down, so I gave up and went to Amazon and bought an alternative. I've also experienced multiple business situations where one of our services went down at an inconv…
Great. So how much did the webshop lose in that hour of maintenance (which realistically would be in the middle of the night for their main audience) and how much would they have paid for redundancy? Also a bit hard to believe you repeatedly ran into the situation of an item sold at a self-hosted webshop and Amazon alike. Are you sure they haven't just messed up the web dev biz? You could totally do that with AWS too...
> If you're spending 250 euros/month on a server, spending a little more to get a load balancer and a pair of servers isn't going to change your spend materially.
Of course, but that's not the argument. It's implied you can just double the 250€/m server for redundancy, as you would still get an offer at the fraction of cloud prices. But really that server needs no more optimization in terms of hardware diversification. As I said, it's complete overkill. Blogs and forums could easily be run on a 30€/m recycled machine.