←back to thread

SSDs have become fast, except in the cloud

(databasearchitects.blogspot.com)
589 points greghn | 7 comments | | HN request time: 0.86s | source | bottom
1. fabioyy ◴[] No.39444360[source]
it is not worth to use cloud if you need a lot of iops/bandwidth

heck, its not worth for anything besides scalability

dedicated servers are wayyyy cheaper

replies(1): >>39444778 #
2. kstrauser ◴[] No.39444778[source]
I'm not certain that's true if you look at TCO. Yes, you can probably buy a server for less than the yearly rent on the equivalent EC2 instance. But then you've got to put that server somewhere, with reliable power and probably redundant Internet connections. You have to pay someone's salary to set it up and load it to the point that a user can SSH in and configure it. 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.

Yeah, you can skip a lot of that if your goal is to get a server online as cheaply as possible, reliability be damned. As soon as you start caring about keeping it in a business-ready state, costs start to skyrocket.

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.

replies(5): >>39445279 #>>39446313 #>>39446784 #>>39447014 #>>39447444 #
3. Nextgrid ◴[] No.39445279[source]
> But then you've got to put that server somewhere, with reliable power and probably redundant Internet connections. You have to pay someone's salary to set it up and load it to the point that a user can SSH in and configure it. You have to maintain an inventory of spares, and pay someone to swap it out if it breaks.

There's a middle-ground between cloud and colocation. There are plenty of providers such as OVH, Hetzner, Equinix, etc which will do all of the above for you.

4. the8472 ◴[] No.39446313[source]
At least in the workstation segment cloud doesn't compete. We use Threadrippers + A6000 GPUs at work. Getting the equivalent datacenter-type GPUs and EPYC processors is more expensive, even after accounting for IT and utilization.
5. layer8 ◴[] No.39446784[source]
Where I live, a number of SMEs are doing this. It’s really not that costly, unless you are a tiny startup I guess.
6. justsomehnguy ◴[] No.39447014[source]
> as cheaply as possible, reliability be damned. As soon as you start caring about keeping it in a business-ready state, costs start to skyrocket.

The demand for five-nines is greatly exaggerated.

7. BackBlast ◴[] No.39447444[source]
> I'm not certain that's true if you look at TCO.

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.