←back to thread

SSDs have become fast, except in the cloud

(databasearchitects.blogspot.com)
589 points greghn | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.425s | source
Show context
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 #
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 #
1. 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.