SSDs have become fast, except in the cloud

Sigh. This old trope from ancient history in internet time.

> Yes, you can probably buy a server for less than the yearly rent on the equivalent EC2 instance.

Or a monthly bill... I can oft times buy a higher performing server for the cost of a rental for a single month.

> But then you've got to put that server somewhere, with reliable power and probably redundant Internet connections

Power:

The power problem is a lot lower with modern systems because they can use a lot less of it per unit of compute/memory/disk performance. Idle power has improved a lot too. You don't need 700 watts of server power anymore for a 2 socket 8 core monster that is outclassed by a modern $400 mini-pc that maxes out at 45 watts.

You can buy server rack batteries now in a modern chemistry that'll go 20 years with zero maintenance. 4U sized 5kwh cost 1000-1500. EVs have pushed battery cost down a LOT. How much do you really need? Do you even need a generator if your battery just carries the day? Even if your power reliability totally sucks?

Network:

Never been easier to buy network transfer. Fiber is available in many places, even cable speeds are well beyond the past, and there's starlink if you want to be fully resistant to local power issues. Sure, get two vendors for redundancy. Then you can hit cloud-style uptimes out of your closet.

Overlay networks like tailscale make the networking issues within the reach of almost anyone.

> Yeah, you can skip a lot of that if your goal is to get a server online as cheaply as possible, reliability be damned

Google cut it's teeth with cheap consumer class white box computers when "best practice" of the day was to buy expensive server class hardware. It's a tried and true method of bootstrapping.

> You have to maintain an inventory of spares, and pay someone to swap it out if it breaks. You have to pay to put its backups somewhere.

Have you seen the size of M.2 sticks? Memory sticks? They aren't very big... I happened to like opening up systems and actually touching the hardware I use.

But yeah, if you just can't make it work or be bothered in the modern era of computing. Then stick with the cloud and the 10-100x premium they charge for their services.

> I've worn the sysadmin hat. If AWS burned down, I'd be ready and willing to recreate the important parts locally so that my company could stay in business. But wow, would they ever be in for some sticker shock.

Nice. But I don't think it cost as much as you think. If you run apps on the stuff you rent and then compare it to your own hardware, it's night and day.

there is a reason why vcpu performance is still locked to the typical core from 10 years ago when every core on a machine today in those data scenters is 3-5x or more speed basis. Its cause they can charge you for 5x the cores to get that gain.

Last time (about a year ago) I ran a couple random IO benchmarks against a storage optimized instances and the random IOPs behavior is closer to a large spinning RAID array than SSDs if the disk size is over some threshold.

IIRC, What it looks like is that there is a fast local SSD cache with a couple hundred GB of storage and then the rest is backed by remote spinning media.

Its one of the many reasons I have a hard time taking cloud optimization seriously, the lack of direct tiering controls means that database/etc style workloads are not going to optimize well and that will end up costing a lot of $$$$$.

So, maybe it was the instance types/configuration I was using, but it was just something I was testing in passing.

    # nvme format /dev/nvme1 -n1 -f
    NVMe status: INVALID_OPCODE: The associated command opcode field is not valid(0x2001)
    # nvme id-ctrl /dev/nvme1 | grep oacs
    oacs      : 0

    LBA Format  0 : Metadata Size: 0   bytes - Data Size: 512 bytes - Relative Performance: 0 Best (in use)