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

Use one big server

specbranch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 601 posts

Re: Use one big server

#31

Post by secabeen »

kbenson wrote: post #2

One server is for a hobby, not a business. Maybe that's fine, but keep that in mind. Backups at that level are something that keeps you from losing all data, not something that keeps you running and gets you up in any acceptable timeframe for most businesses. That doesn't mean you need to use the cloud, it just means one big piece of hardware with all its single points of failure is often not enough. Two servers gets…

This is exactly the OPs recommended solution:

> One Server (Plus a Backup) is Usually Plenty

Re: Use one big server

#32

Post by andrepew »

gregmac wrote: post #8

> However, cloud providers have often had global outages in the past, and there is no reason to assume that cloud datacenters will be down any less often than your individual servers. A nice thing about being in a big provider is when they go down a massive portion of the internet goes down, and it makes news headlines. Users are much less likely to complain about your service being down when it's clear you're just c…

This is a huge one -- value in outsourcing blame. If you're down because of a major provider outage in the news, you're viewed more as a victim of a natural disaster rather than someone to be blamed.

Re: Use one big server

#33

Post by nostrebored »

secabeen wrote: post #26
nostrebored wrote: post #5

As someone who's worked in cloud sales and no longer has any skin in the game, I've seen firsthand how cloud native architectures improve developer velocity, offer enhanced reliability and availability, and actually decrease lock-in over time. Every customer I worked with who had one of these huge servers introduced coupling and state in some unpleasant way. They were locked in to persisted state, and couldn't scale…

The common element in the above is scaling and reliability. While lots of startups and companies are focused on the 1% chance that they are the next Google or Shopify, the reality is that nearly all aren't, and the overengineering and redundancy-first model that cloud pushes does cost them a lot of runway. It's even less useful for large companies; there is no world in which Kellogg is going to increase sales by 100x…

But most companies aren't startups. Many companies are established, growing businesses with a need to be able to easily implement new initiatives and products.

The benefits of cloud for LE are completely different. I'm happy to break down why, but I addressed the smb and mid-enterprise space here because most large enterprises already know they shouldn't run on a single rack.

Re: Use one big server

#34

Post by kbenson »

secabeen wrote: post #31
kbenson wrote: post #2

One server is for a hobby, not a business. Maybe that's fine, but keep that in mind. Backups at that level are something that keeps you from losing all data, not something that keeps you running and gets you up in any acceptable timeframe for most businesses. That doesn't mean you need to use the cloud, it just means one big piece of hardware with all its single points of failure is often not enough. Two servers gets…

This is exactly the OPs recommended solution: > One Server (Plus a Backup) is Usually Plenty

The I guess my first sentence is about eqally as click-baity as the article title. ;)

Re: Use one big server

#35

Post by cal85 »

> In comparison, buying servers takes about 8 months to break even compared to using cloud servers, and 30 months to break even compared to renting.

Can anyone help me understand why the cloud/renting is still this expensive? I'm not familiar with this area, but it seems to me that big data centers must have some pretty big cost-saving advantages (maintenance? heat management?). And there are several major providers all competing in a thriving marketplace, so I would expect that to drive the cost down. How can it still be so much cheaper to run your own on-prem server?

Re: Use one big server

#36

Post by stevenjgarner »

erichocean wrote: post #20
stevenjgarner wrote: post #6

If you are not maxing out or even getting above 50% utilization of 128 physical cores (256 threads), 512 GB of memory, and 50 Gbps of bandwidth for $1,318/month , I really like the approach of multiple low-end consumable computers as servers. I have been using arrays of Intel NUCs at some customer sites for years with considerable cost savings over cloud offerings. Keep an extra redundant one in the array ready to sw…

> it is quite easy and cheap to register as a public telecommunication utility Is North Carolina one of those states? I'm intrigued…

I have only done a few midwestern states. Call them and ask [0] - (919) 733-7328. You may want to first call your proposed county commissioner's office or city hall (if you are not rural), and ask them who to talk with about a new local business providing Internet service. If you can show the Utilities Commission that you are working with someone at the local level I have found they will treat you more seriously. In certain rural counties, you can even qualify for funding from the Rural Utilities Service of the USDA.

[0] https://www.ncuc.net/

EDIT: typos + also most states distinguish between facilities-based ISP's (ie with physical plant in the regulated public right-of-way) and other ISPs. Tell them you are looking to become a facilities-based ISP.

Re: Use one big server

#37

Post by softfalcon »

So... I guess these folks haven't heard of latency before? Fairly sure you have to have "one big server" in every country if you do this. I feel like that would get rather costly compared to geographically distributed cloud services long term.

Re: Use one big server

#38

Post by taylodl »

gregmac wrote: post #8

> However, cloud providers have often had global outages in the past, and there is no reason to assume that cloud datacenters will be down any less often than your individual servers. A nice thing about being in a big provider is when they go down a massive portion of the internet goes down, and it makes news headlines. Users are much less likely to complain about your service being down when it's clear you're just c…

Users are much more sympathetic to outages when they're widespread. But, if there's a contractual SLA then their sympathy doesn't matter. You have to meet your SLA. That usually isn't a big problem as SLAs tend to account for some amount of downtime, but it's important to keep the SLA in mind.

Re: Use one big server

#39

Post by rubiquity »

reillyse wrote: post #12

Nope. Multiple small servers. 1) you need to get over the hump and build in multiple servers into your architecture from the get go (the author says you need two servers minimum), so really we are talking about two big servers. 2) having multiple small servers allows us to spread our service into different availability zones 3) multiple small servers allows us to do rolling deploys without bringing down our entire se…

The line of thinking you follow is what is plaguing this industry with too much complexity and simultaneously throwing away incredible CPU and PCIe performance gains in favor of using the network.

Any technical decisions about how many instances to have and how they should be spread out needs to start as a business decision and end in crisp numbers about recovery point/time objections, and yet somehow that nearly never happens.

To answer your points:

1) Not necessarily. You can stream data backups to remote storage and recover from that on a new single server as long as that recovery fits your Recovery Time Objective (RTO).

2) What's the benefit of multiple AZs if the SLA of a single AZ is greater than your intended availability goals? (Have you checked your provider's single AZ SLA?)

3) You can absolutely do rolling deploys on a single server.

4) Using one large server doesn't mean you can't compliment it with smaller servers on an as-needed basis. AWS even has a service for doing this.

Which is to say: there aren't any prescriptions when it comes to such decisions. Some businesses warrant your choices, the vast majority do not.

Re: Use one big server

#40

Post by erichocean »

stevenjgarner wrote: post #36
erichocean wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is quite easy and cheap to register as a public telecommunication utility Is North Carolina one of those states? I'm intrigued…

I have only done a few midwestern states. Call them and ask [0] - (919) 733-7328. You may want to first call your proposed county commissioner's office or city hall (if you are not rural), and ask them who to talk with about a new local business providing Internet service. If you can show the Utilities Commission that you are working with someone at the local level I have found they will treat you more seriously. In…

Thanks!
Post reply on HN