Live data from Hacker News

Don't rent the cloud, own instead

blog.comma.ai

21–30 of 516 posts

Re: Don't rent the cloud, own instead

#21
post #2

It would be interesting to hear their contingency plan for any kind of disaster (most commonly a fire) that hits their data center.

Theres only one solution to this problem and its 2 data centres in some way or form

What's the line from Contact?

why build one when you can have two at twice the price?

But, if you're building a datacenter for $5M, spending $10-15M for redundant datacenters (even with extra networking costs), would still be cheaper than their estimated $25M cloud costs.

Re: Don't rent the cloud, own instead

#22
> Cloud companies generally make onboarding very easy, and offboarding very difficult.

I reckon most on-prem deployments have significantly worse offboarding than the cloud providers. As a cloud provider you can win business by having something for offboarding, but internally you'd never get buy-in to spend on a backup plan if you decide to move to the cloud.

Re: Don't rent the cloud, own instead

#23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also opex vs capex, which is a battle opex wins most of the time.

I think it wins because opex is seen as stable recurring cost and capex is seen as the money you put in your primary differentiation for long term gains.

Capex may also require you to take out loans

Re: Don't rent the cloud, own instead

#24
post #2

It would be interesting to hear their contingency plan for any kind of disaster (most commonly a fire) that hits their data center.

They use the datasenter for model training, not to serve online users. Presumably even if it will be offline for a week or even a month it will not be a total disaster as long as they have, for example, offsite tape backups.

Re: Don't rent the cloud, own instead

#25
post #5

This is a great solution for a very specific type of team but I think most companies with consistent GPU workloads will still just rent dedicated servers and call it a day.

It's the opposite. The more consistent your workload the more practical and cost-effective it is to go on-prem.

Cloud excels for bursty or unpredictable workloads where quickly scaling up and down can save you money.

Re: Don't rent the cloud, own instead

#27
I like Hotz’s style: simply and straightforwardly attempting the difficult and complex. I always get the impression: “You don’t need to be too fancy or clever. You don’t need permission or credentials. You just need to go out and do the thing. What are you waiting for?”

Re: Don't rent the cloud, own instead

#29
At scale (like comma.ai), it's probably cheaper. But until then it's a long term cost optimization with really high upfront capital expenditure and risk. Which means it doesn't make much sense for the majority of startup companies until they become late stage and their hosting cost actually becomes a big cost burden.

There are in between solutions. Renting bare metal instead of renting virtual machines can be quite nice. I've done that via Hetzner some years ago. You pay just about the same but you get a lot more performance for the same money. This is great if you actually need that performance.

People obsess about hardware but there's also the software side to consider. For smaller companies, operations/devops people are usually more expensive than the resources they manage. The cost to optimize is that cost. The hosting cost usually is a rounding error on the staffing cost. And on top of that the amount of responsibilities increases as soon as you own the hardware. You need to service it, monitor it, replace it when it fails, make sure those fans don't get jammed by dust puppies, deal with outages when they happen, etc. All the stuff that you pay cloud providers to do for you now becomes your problem. And it has a non zero cost.

The right mindset for hosting cost is to think of it in FTEs (full time employee cost for a year). If it's below 1 (most startups until they are well into scale up territory), you are doing great. Most of the optimizations you are going to get are going to cost you in actual FTEs spent doing that work. 1 FTE pays for quite a bit of hosting. Think 10K per month in AWS cost. A good ops person/developer is more expensive than that. My company runs at about 1K per month (GCP and misc managed services). It would be the wrong thing to optimize for us. It's not worth spending any amount of time on for me. I literally have more valuable things to do.

This flips when you start getting into the multiple FTEs per month in cost for just the hosting. At that point you probably have additional cost measured in 5-10 FTE in staffing anyway to babysit all of that. So now you can talk about trading off some hosting FTEs for modest amount of extra staffing FTEs and make net gains.

Re: Don't rent the cloud, own instead

#30
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theres only one solution to this problem and its 2 data centres in some way or form

What's the line from Contact? why build one when you can have two at twice the price? But, if you're building a datacenter for $5M, spending $10-15M for redundant datacenters (even with extra networking costs), would still be cheaper than their estimated $25M cloud costs.

Or build two 2.5MM DCs (if can parallelize your workload well enough) and in case of disaster, you only lose capacity.

You need however plan for 1MM+ pa in OPEX because good SREs ain’t cheap (or hardware guys building and maintaining machines)

Post reply on HN