> Self-hosting a database sounds terrifying.
Is this actually the "common" view (in this context)?
I've got decades with databases so I cannot even begin to fathom where such an attitude would develop, but, is it?
Boggling.
Go ahead, self-host Postgres
131–140 of 407 posts
Re: Go ahead, self-host Postgres
#132People really love jumping through hoops to avoid spending five dollars.
Re: Go ahead, self-host Postgres
#133> When self-hosting makes sense: 1. If you're just starting out in software & want to get something working quickly [...]
This is when you use SQLite, not Postgres. Easy enough to turn into Postgres later, nothing to set up. It already works. And backups are literally just "it's a file, incremental backup by your daily backups already covers this".
Re: Go ahead, self-host Postgres
#134So, yeah, I guess there's much confusion about what a 'managed database' actually is ? Because for me, the table stakes are: -Backups: the provider will push a full generic disaster-recovery backup of my database to an off-provider location at least daily, without the need for a maintenance window -Optimization: index maintenance and storage optimization are performed automatically and transparently -Multi-datacenter…
If you set it up right, you can automate all this as well by self hosting. There is really nothing special about automating backups or multi region fail over.
But then you have to check that these mechanisms work regularly and manually
Re: Go ahead, self-host Postgres
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Self-hosting is more a question of responsibility I'd say. I am running a couple of SaaS products and self-host at much better performance at a fraction of the cost of running this on AWS It is. You need to answer the question: what are the consecuences of your service being down for lets say 4 hours or some security patch isn't properly applied or you have not followed the best practices in terms of security? Many…
Yea I agree.. better outsource product development, management, and everything else too by that narrative
That’s pretty reductive. By that logic the opposite extreme is just as true: if using managed services is just as bad as outsourcing everything else, then a business shouldn’t rent real estate either—every business should build and own their own facility. They should also never contract out janitorial work, nor should they retain outside law firms—they should hire and staff those departments internally, every time, no nuance allowed.
You see the issue?
Like, I’m all for not procuring things that it makes more sense to own/build (and I know most businesses have piss-poor instincts on which is which—hell, I work for the government! I can see firsthand the consequences of outsourcing decision making to contractors, rather than just outsourcing implementation).
But it’s very case-by-case. There’s no general rule like “always prefer self hosting” or “always rent real estate, never buy” that applies broadly enough to be useful.
Re: Go ahead, self-host Postgres
#136Self-hosting is more a question of responsibility I'd say. I am running a couple of SaaS products and self-host at much better performance at a fraction of the cost of running this on AWS. It's amazing and it works perfectly fine. For client projects, however, I always try and sell them on paying the AWS fees, simply because it shifts the responsibility of the hardware being "up" to someone else. It does not inherent…
Over 20 year I've had lots of clients on self-hosted, even self-hosting SQL on the same VM as the webserver as you used to in the long distant past for low-usage web apps.
I have never, ever, ever had a SQL box go down. I've had a web server go down once. I had someone who probably shouldn't have had access to a server accidentally turn one off once.
The only major outage I've had (2/3 hours) was when the box was also self-hosting an email server and I accidentally caused it to flood itself with failed delivery notices with a deploy.
I may have cried a little in frustration and panic but it got fixed in the end.
I actually find using cloud hosted SQL in some ways harder and more complicated because it's such a confusing mess of cost and what you're actually getting. The only big complication is setting up backups, and that's a one-off task.
Re: Go ahead, self-host Postgres
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
> employing engineers to manage self-hosted databases is more cost effective than outsourcing Every company out there is using the cloud and yet still employs infrastructure engineers to deal with its complexity. The "cloud" reducing staff costs is and was always a lie. PaaS platforms (Heroku, Render, Railway) can legitimately be operated by your average dev and not have to hire a dedicated person; those cost even mo…
> Every company out there is using the cloud and yet still employs infrastructure engineers to deal with its complexity. The "cloud" reducing staff costs is and was always a lie. This doesn’t make sense as an argument. The reason the cloud is more complex is because that complexity is available. Under a certain size, a large number of cloud products simply can’t be managed in-house (and certainly not altogether). Als…
>At a smaller business I worked at, I was able to use these services to achieve uptime and performance that I couldn’t achieve self-hosted, because I had to spend time on the product itself. So yeah, we’d saved on infrastructure engineers.
How sure are you about that one? All of my hetzner vm`s reach an uptime if 99.9% something.
I could see more then one small business stack fitting onto a single of those vm`s.
Re: Go ahead, self-host Postgres
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you set it up right, you can automate all this as well by self hosting. There is really nothing special about automating backups or multi region fail over.
But then you have to check that these mechanisms work regularly and manually
One thing I learned working in the industry, you have to check them when you're using AWS too.
Re: Go ahead, self-host Postgres
#139Self-hosting is more a question of responsibility I'd say. I am running a couple of SaaS products and self-host at much better performance at a fraction of the cost of running this on AWS. It's amazing and it works perfectly fine. For client projects, however, I always try and sell them on paying the AWS fees, simply because it shifts the responsibility of the hardware being "up" to someone else. It does not inherent…
You can still outsource up to VM level and handle everything else on you own.
Obviously it depends on the operational overhead of specific technology.
Re: Go ahead, self-host Postgres
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every company out there is using the cloud and yet still employs infrastructure engineers to deal with its complexity. The "cloud" reducing staff costs is and was always a lie. This doesn’t make sense as an argument. The reason the cloud is more complex is because that complexity is available. Under a certain size, a large number of cloud products simply can’t be managed in-house (and certainly not altogether). Als…
>At a smaller business I worked at, I was able to use these services to achieve uptime and performance that I couldn’t achieve self-hosted, because I had to spend time on the product itself. So yeah, we’d saved on infrastructure engineers. How sure are you about that one? All of my hetzner vm`s reach an uptime if 99.9% something. I could see more then one small business stack fitting onto a single of those vm`s.
100% certain because I started by self hosting before moving to AWS services for specific components and improved the uptime and reduced the time I spent keeping those services alive.