this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
999 points (100.0% liked)

196

16730 readers
2327 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I’d like to thank the admins for being so open and direct about the issues that they’re facing.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] supakaity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago

Oh goodness, why is this so funny? lol.

blobhaj, ani, hearts, animated

[–] albert180@feddit.de 159 points 1 year ago (12 children)

I don't get why anyone hosts Servers running 24/7 on AWS/GCloud/Azure. The pricing is just outrageous. Everyone else will be cheaper

[–] thelastknowngod@lemm.ee 87 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be fair, with a proper autoscaling scheme in place these services should scale down significantly when not in use.

That being said, a big reason for using AWS/GCP is all the additional services that are available on the platform.. If the workload being run isn't that complicated, the hyperscalers are probably overkill. Even DO or Linode would be a better option under those circumstances.

[–] Overmind@lemmy.sdf.org 63 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This. AWS architect here. There are a lot of ways to reduce pricing in AWS like horizontal scaling, serverless functions, reserved instances. Most people aren't aware of it and if you're going to dive in head first into something like cloud, you'll need to bear the consequences and then learn eventually.

[–] greyscale@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Even with ASGs, ec2 costs a bomb for performance.

And "serverless" functions are a trap.

If you're gonna commit to reserved instances, just buy hardware for goodness sake, its a 3 year commitment with a huge upfront spend.

[–] rolaulten@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can do one year dedicated spend.

But yes. Serverless is a trap to be avoided.

[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Mark my words the loop is coming back around. I look forward to when my work migrates the datacenter off AWS back on prem because of ballooning costs.

You work in IT long enough you see it for the joke it is. We get paid obscene amounts of money to do what amounts to nothing.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] thelastknowngod@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Yep. And if you want to really save some cash and don't mind getting a little crazy, use an EKS node orchestrator that supports spot instances. I'm starting to do a serious dive into Harness at the moment actually.

Google recently released a white paper on cost saving in kubernetes as well.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Toribor@corndog.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm in a similar boat. I'm a sysadmin supporting a legacy application running on AWS EC2 instances and a new 'serverless' microservice based platform as well. It's really really hard to scale and optimize anything running on EC2s unless you really know what you're doing or the application is designed with clustering in mind.

You tend to end up sizing instances based on peak load and then wasting capacity 90% of the time (and burning through cash like crazy). I can imagine a lot of Lemmy admins are overspending so fast they give up before they figure it out.

[–] Dasnap@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Nowadays I feel like EC2 is either used for legacy support or testing. Most prod nowadays should probably be built with some kind of container solution so you can scale it easier.

[–] albert180@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

Or you just get dedicated servers at competitors for 1/10th of the price

[–] penguin@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 year ago

AWS is perfect for large operations that value stability and elasticity over anything else.

It's very easy to just spin up a thousand extra servers for momentary demand or some new exciting project. It's also easy to locate multiple instances all over the world for low latency with your users.

If you know you're going to need a couple servers for years and have the hardware knowhow, then it's cheaper to do it yourself for sure.

It's also possible to use aws more efficiently if you know all of their services. I ran a small utils website for my friends and I on it a while ago and it was essentially free since the static files were tiny and on s3 and the backend was lambda which gives you quite a few free calls before charging.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Habit (guess). Its what is used professionally, despite being proven over and over that cost-per-speed is terrible compared to less known providers.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If the average Web engineer's salary capable of running a site like this is ~$180,000, then a $30,000 difference in cost is only about 2 months salary. Learning and dealing with a new hosting environment can easily exceed that.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] virtualbriefcase@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That, and like others mentioned their flexibility, plus the fact that they're fairly reliable (maybe less than some good Iaas providers but a fair bit more than your consumer vps places). Moments ago I went to the hetzner site to check them out and got:

Status Code 504 Gateway Timeout

The upstream server failed to send a request in the time allowed by the server. If you are the Administrator of the Upstream, check your server logs for errors.

Annoying if it's you nextloud instance down for a minutes, but a worthy trade off if you're paying 1/4 of the price. Extremely costly for big business or even risking peoples's lives for a few different very important systems.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Oha@feddit.de 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] jessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago

Hetzner is one of the most cost effective but I recommend always checking serverhunter before choosing

[–] c1177johuk@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

AWS is mostly only useful for large companies who need one hosting provider for all their needs, with every single product tightly integrated into other products

[–] Gork@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hmm like SAP, but less sucky

[–] CertifiedBlackGuy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It does, but that comes with the territory. SAP is the IBM mainframe of business software. You'll be hard-pressed to find a large multinational which don't run SAP... or have a couple of IBM mainframes to run it on. The kind of "large" which means that they don't have IT departments but IT subsidiaries, probably created by buying up a couple of tech consultancies. You know like Samsung buying Joyent, saying "never mind your public platform you'll be busy enough hosting all our data we're the only customer you'll ever need".

[–] hawkwind@lemmy.management 3 points 1 year ago

The pricing scheme here is designed to gouge businesses for equal or more than the traditional non-cloud equivalent. Which happens to be completely unaffordable. Imagine buying a new enterprise grade server for your home setup.

[–] ryannathans@lemmy.fmhy.net 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The only advantage would come if you could rewrite lemmy to be serverless

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] MooseBoys@lemmy.world 70 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Figure 1: Human discovers that hosting a web service for hundreds of thousands of users is expensive.

[–] albert180@feddit.de 23 points 1 year ago

Feddit runs on a 10€ Hetzner VPS. And its one of the biggest nodes in the network

[–] pimeys@lemmy.nauk.io 32 points 1 year ago

Hetzner crowd says hi!

[–] wtry@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I host mine on my home wifi

[–] showmustgo@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] wtry@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought that was a rat colony

[–] bachatero@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] franglais@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Oracle free tier, 4arm cores, 200gb storage, 24gb ram, zero money's spent

[–] mplewis@lemmy.globe.pub 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Oracle is all fun and games until they lose your instance’s IP or data and don’t give it back because you’re a free tier freeloader.

[–] franglais@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

That sounds like the bitter expression of regret and experience.

[–] hyper@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

thats why you make backups and update the dns records 😎

[–] mplewis@lemmy.globe.pub 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I do enough of this in the day job. I don’t have time to mess around with free hosting to save $20 a month.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Stahlreck@feddit.ch 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No catch? Especially with Oracle? Hard to believe kinda, nothing is ever "free".

[–] franglais@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

It's a great deal, if you stay small, the idea is a loss leader, they temp you in and you set up your service, then when you need to scale up, they charge the extras.

[–] filister@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why don't you migrate to cheaper providers like Hetzner? I mean AWS is extremely expensive for what they are and I am pretty sure there are hundreds of people out here who will willingly help you set it up.

[–] w00tabaga@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago

Rome wasn’t built in a day

[–] SaveComengs@lemmy.federa.net 11 points 1 year ago

linode whenthe

load more comments
view more: next ›