Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to insinuate that the correct pricing is using a 3 year commitment. That seems very much not logical to me considering the original promise of the cloud to be flexible, and to scale up and down on demand.
You're also getting pretty stale instances by the end of the 3 years. At two difference companies, I've seen a big batch of committed instances finally go off contract, and we replaced them with more modern instances that improved performance significantly while not costing us anything more or even letting us shrink the pool, saving us money. It's a pain, but auto scaling groups with a couple different spot instance…
AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
161–168 of 168 posts
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#162Earlier 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.
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.
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 igno…
And I stand by what I said: lots of people don't have experience with non-AWS setups and are going around repeating AWS salespeople cliches.
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to insinuate that the correct pricing is using a 3 year commitment. That seems very much not logical to me considering the original promise of the cloud to be flexible, and to scale up and down on demand.
Should you be designing for a single server to exist for 3 years when you have such elastic compute? Why not design for living on spot instances and get savings lower than hetzner with better performance? What about floating savings plans? There’s a ton left on the table here just to say ‘aws bad’ for some views
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I've used dozens of VPS providers in my life, and a sizable majority had not advertised any load balancing offerings. I can open tickets to move IP addresses around. But that takes time. And these environments almost always require static configuration of your IP address, which you need some way to do effectively during your outage.
Anyone who declares managing their own stuff to be easy is, to me, highly suspect. Day 0 setting stuff up isn't so bad, day 1 running will show you some new things, but as time goes on there's always new and surprising ways for things to break or not scale or not be resilient or for backups to not be quite right. You talk about employing people to manage for you, but one to three persons salary will buy you a lot of elasticache and rds. As a business, it's hard to trust your DBA's and other folks, to believe the half dozen people really have done a great job. Where-as you know there have been many people-decades of work out into resiliency at AWS or others, you know what you are getting, and it's probably cheaper than having your own team for many many people.
I want to be clear that I am 100% for folks buying hardware and hosting themselves. I think it's awesome and wild how good hardware is. But what we run atop is way way way too often more an afterthought than a well planned cohesive system that's going to work well over time. Thats why I am hats off to the open source platform engineering works out there. I think we're getting closer to some very interesting spaces where doing for ourselves starts to be viable, in a way that's legitimate & runnable in ways that everyone-figuring-it-out-for-themselved of the past was always quite risky and where the business as a whole or external systems reviewers rarely had a good ability to evaluate what was really going on or how trustworthy it was.
I aspire for us to outdo the perception that other people managing for us is a great freedom. I really long for that. But the kind of "meh it's not that hard" attitude I see here, to me, dissuades from the point: it undermines how hard and what a travail it is to run systems. It is a travail. But it's one that open source platform engineering is advancing mightily to meet, in exciting & clear ways, that the just throwing some shit up there past always made murky.
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#166Earlier 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 $…
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.
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a CTO of a number of small startups, I am still struggling to understand what exactly AWS and other cloud providers give you to justify the markup. And yes we’ve been heavy users of both AWS and Google Cloud for years, mainly because of the credits they initially provided, but also used VMs, dedicated servers and other services from Hetzner and OVH extensively. In my experience, in terms of availability and securi…
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 $…
Single human point of failure for something tied to the bottom line is NOT a technical problem, it's management.
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
> such as the belief that bare-metal means “server room here in the office” I remember the day I discovered some companies, and not just tech ones (Walmart, UPS, Toyota,…) actually own, operate, and use their own datacenters. And there companies out there specialized in planning and building datacenters for them. I mean, it’s kind of obvious. But it made me realize at how small a scale I both thought and operated.
Walmart does not want to use AWS because they are in direct competition. I worked for a company that was attempting to sell software to walmart.