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

AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

oneuptime.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 513 posts

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#181

Post by saxenaabhi »

submeta wrote: post #127

There is so much hidden cost in maintaining your own bare metal infrastructure. I am always astounded by how people overlook the massive opportunity cost involved in not only setting up, securing, and maintaining your bare metal infrastructure, but also make it state of the art, including best practices, making sure you have required uptime, monitoring and intervening if necessary. - I work in a highly regulated mark…

I agree, I have a restaurant POS system and I think self-hosting would easily kill the product velocity, and if we screw up bad, even the company.

However, I do get the point about cost-premium and more importantly vendor-risk that's paid when using managed services.

We are hosted on cloudflare workers which is very cheap, but to mitigate the vendor risk we have also setup up replicas of our api servers on bunny.net and render.com.

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#182

Post by whstl »

al_borland wrote: post #55
9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the fallacy that Amazon sold everyone on: that the cloud has no headache or managment needed. This is manifestly untrue. It's also untrue that bare metal takes lots of management time. I have multiple Dell rack servers colocated in several different datacenters, and I don't spend any time at all managing them. They just run.

> This is the fallacy that Amazon sold everyone on I’ve been working at a place for a long time and we have our own data centers. Recently there has been a push to move to the public cloud and we were told to go through AWS training. It seems like the first thing AWS does in its training is spend a considerable amount of time on selling their model. As an employee who works in infrastructure, hearing Amazon sell so h…

I can confirm this.

The AWS mandatory training I did in the past was 100% marketing of their own solutions, and tests are even designed to make you memorize their entire product line.

The first two levels are not designed for engineers: they're designed for "internal salespeople". Even Product Managers were taking the certification, so they would be able to recommend AWS products to their teams.

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#183

Post by wredcoll »

vidarh wrote: post #72
calgoo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, when something breaks, you are responsible. If you put it in AWS like everyone else and it breaks, then its their problem not yours. We will still implement workarounds and fixes when it happens, but we are not responsible. Basic enterprise rules these days is to always pay someone else to be responsible.

Unless you put someone on retainer to be responsible, which you can do cheaper than to keep your AWS setup from breaking... (I do that for people; my AWS using customers consistently end up needing more help)

The point isn't cost, it's dodging responsibility.

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#184

Post by globular-toast »

stuff4ben wrote: post #118

Never heard of Talos before now. That looks pretty cool and I might start playing with that on my home lab. Can't use it at work for reasons, but good to keep on top of tech (even if I am a little behind)

This dude did a complete walkthrough setting up a Talos cluster on bare metal: https://datavirke.dk/posts/bare-metal-kubernetes-part-1-talo... It's a nice read. I have my own Talos cluster running in my homelab now for over a year with similar stuff (but no Ceph).

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#185

Post by embedding-shape »

Joeboy wrote: post #179
embedding-shape wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, slightly misleading though, as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare-metal_server is a separate page.

Yes, but if you look up "bare metal" it goes to the page about actual bare metal (aka "bare machines" or whatever). Can we stop this now? Please?

> Yes, but if you look up "bare metal" it goes to the page about actual bare metal (or bare machines or whatever).

Fix it then, if you think it's incorrect. Otherwise, link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare_metal_(disambiguation) like any normal and charitable commentator would do.

> Can we stop this now? Please?

Sure, feel free to stop at any point you want to.

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#186

Post by wredcoll »

maccard wrote: post #167
bilekas wrote: post #11

I'm so surprised there is so much pushback against this.. AWS is extremely expensive. The use cases for setting up your system or service entirely in AWS are more rare than people seem to realise. Maybe I'm just the old man screaming at cloud (no pun intended) but when did people forget how to run a baremetal server ? > We have 730+ days with 99.993% measured availability and we also escaped AWS region wide downtime…

I work for a small company owned by a huge company. We are entirely independent except for purchasing, IT, and budget approval. We run our CI on AWS, and it’s slow and flaky for a variety of reasons (compiling large c++ projects combined with instance type pressure). It’s also expensive. We planned a migration to move from 4OD instances to one on prem machine and we guessed we’d save $1000/mo, our builds would be fas…

This is the root success of aws, it lets internal teams bypass sysadmin departments.

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#187

Post by dd_xplore »

papichulo2023 wrote: post #120
spwa4 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A high availability MySQL server on AWS is about the same difficulty as on your own kubernetes instance (I've got a play one on one of those $100 N100 machines, got one with 16G mem). Then: helm repo add mariadb-operator https://mariadb-operator.github.io/mariadb-operator helm install mariadb-operator mariadb-operator/mariadb-operator And then you can just provision MariaDB "kind", ie. you kubectl apply with somethin…

Dont you need ECC in your db nodes?

N100 supports DDR5 memory (although 1 channel) but I believe DDR5 has some error correction... May not be full ECC

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#188

Post by globular-toast »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #103

This is a completely meaningless article if they don't provide information about their technical stack, which AWS services they used to use, what TPS they are hitting, what storage size they're using, etc. The story will be different for every business because every business has different needs. Given the answer to "How much did migration and ongoing ops really cost?" it seems like they had an incredibly simple infra…

TFA begins with a link to the original article with those details.

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#189

Post by hedora »

kleiba wrote: post #174
anal_reactor wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My manager wants me to make this silly AWS certification. Let me go on a tangent about trains. In Spain before you board a high-speed train you need to go though full security check, like on an airport. In all other EU countries you just show up and board, but in Spain there's the security check. The problem is that even though the security check is an expensive, inefficient theatre, just in case something does blow…

How does Spain deal with trains that come in from a neighboring country?

The security check has nothing to do with protecting trains or passengers, so your question is irrelevant.

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#190

Post by wredcoll »

whstl wrote: post #176
vidarh wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I help people run their systems. Clients that use cloud consistently end up spending more on devops resources, because their setups tends to be wastly more complex and involve more people.

I've worked on both kinds of companies in almost 25 years and I can confirm this is true. The biggest ops teams I worked alongside were always dedicated to running AWS setups. The slowest too were dedicated to AWS. Proportionally, I mean, of course. People here are comparing the worst possible of Bare Metal with "hosting my startup on AWS".

> The biggest ops teams I worked alongside were always dedicated to running AWS setups. The slowest too were dedicated to AWS.

I wish I could come up with some kind of formalization of this issue. I think it has something to do with communication explosions across multiple people.

Post reply on HN