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

AWS and Azure Are at Least 4x–10x More Expensive Than Hetzner

learn.umh.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 142 posts

Re: AWS and Azure Are at Least 4x–10x More Expensive Than Hetzner

#21

Post by JoshTriplett »

theshrike79 wrote: post #12
hggigg wrote: post #11

Worth noting us large AWS customers get huge discounts, huge credit, actual real engineers on hand 24/7 on Slack, contractual service guarantees that last years and a large market of people we can leverage to build stuff in there. And a lot of the services are low to zero cost that would be expensive to run on Hetzner or don't exist and you have to build out. YMMV but all costs aren't instance costs.

Yep, most corporations have 2-3 _named_ account reps who are available on the company Slack and will visit your office 1-2 times a year to sync up that everything is working as it should. And they're not just salespeople, they've actually said multiple times if a feature doesn't work for us without trying to hold it wrong in a dangerous (and expensive) way.

> they've actually said multiple times if a feature doesn't work for us without trying to hold it wrong in a dangerous (and expensive) way.

Can you give examples of this? I'd love to hear more about the kinds of guidance they can give.

Re: AWS and Azure Are at Least 4x–10x More Expensive Than Hetzner

#23

Post by bravetraveler »

anonzzzies wrote: post #8
infocollector wrote: post #3

Summary: Hetzner does offer reliable and cheap machines compared to AWS/Azure/GCP. The pricing is more on par with Digital Ocean/Linode.

For many things DO is 2x or more though. Linode I never tried.

Not sure it still applies, but I didn't like Linode because they minded the disk arrangement too much. Prescribing the layout/geometry in the UI. Something about their implementation prevents one from just loading a typical cloudy image.

Maybe, just maybe, I want to use LVM or something entirely unknown to them. Not necessarily in a privacy sense, but control.

Re: AWS and Azure Are at Least 4x–10x More Expensive Than Hetzner

#25

Post by [deleted] »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #17

On GCP and Azure, most folks would be better off running serverless containers via Cloud Run or Container Apps (AWS has no direct equivalent that scales to 0 and incurs no cost). Both of these scale to zero and offer 180k vCPU/s free per month, 360k GB/s free per month. You incur billing only against the active execution time. Cloud Run Jobs has a whole separate free monthly grant as well. You can run A LOT for free…

[deleted]

Re: AWS and Azure Are at Least 4x–10x More Expensive Than Hetzner

#26

Post by obenn »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #17

On GCP and Azure, most folks would be better off running serverless containers via Cloud Run or Container Apps (AWS has no direct equivalent that scales to 0 and incurs no cost). Both of these scale to zero and offer 180k vCPU/s free per month, 360k GB/s free per month. You incur billing only against the active execution time. Cloud Run Jobs has a whole separate free monthly grant as well. You can run A LOT for free…

The AWS equivalent to Cloud Run and Container Apps is called Fargate, https://aws.amazon.com/fargate/

Re: AWS and Azure Are at Least 4x–10x More Expensive Than Hetzner

#27

Post by EdwardDiego »

jasode wrote: post #19

>While AWS and Azure are industry leaders, their advantages often only materialize at massive scales. [...] Your comparisons are similar to many others out there that focus on measuring basic cpu and memory. This type of easy comparison where AWS/Azure/GCP is treated as a "dumb" datacenter is easy for alternatives like Hetzner or self-hosting to "win". >Do you really need the advanced features of AWS and Azure right…

Unfortunately, it's a false dichotomy you present, it's not a binary choice of fully managed or entirely roll your own.

E.g., if you're running K8s (one thing I typically recommend you buy a managed one of), you can install your own Kafka in it, using an operator that does about 85% of what MSK does.

Sure, you'll need to dedicate person hours to support the operator, but is supporting that any more expensive than supporting AWS products? That you're already paying through the nose for?

Re: AWS and Azure Are at Least 4x–10x More Expensive Than Hetzner

#28

Post by CharlieDigital »

obenn wrote: post #26
CharlieDigital wrote: post #17

On GCP and Azure, most folks would be better off running serverless containers via Cloud Run or Container Apps (AWS has no direct equivalent that scales to 0 and incurs no cost). Both of these scale to zero and offer 180k vCPU/s free per month, 360k GB/s free per month. You incur billing only against the active execution time. Cloud Run Jobs has a whole separate free monthly grant as well. You can run A LOT for free…

The AWS equivalent to Cloud Run and Container Apps is called Fargate, https://aws.amazon.com/fargate/

Neither Fargate nor App Runner scale to zero (unless something changed). So there is always a baseline cost of a few dollars.

Re: AWS and Azure Are at Least 4x–10x More Expensive Than Hetzner

#29

Post by londons_explore »

jasode wrote: post #19

>While AWS and Azure are industry leaders, their advantages often only materialize at massive scales. [...] Your comparisons are similar to many others out there that focus on measuring basic cpu and memory. This type of easy comparison where AWS/Azure/GCP is treated as a "dumb" datacenter is easy for alternatives like Hetzner or self-hosting to "win". >Do you really need the advanced features of AWS and Azure right…

Continuing this reasoning...

As soon as your startup does get big, it starts to make more sense to try and migrate to 'dumb' machines and save on infrastructure costs, especially if your business is low margin and your infrastructure costs are high.

Re: AWS and Azure Are at Least 4x–10x More Expensive Than Hetzner

#30

Post by earnesti »

I believe that I've saved millions thanks to the fact that I stumbled on Hetzner back in the days and started using it for the company I was working on. Not saying it is a perfect service, but I very much like my money, and seeing on what kind of invoices are racked up by using these cloud services, I'm pretty confident that the alternative costs would have been 4-5x more.
Post reply on HN