←back to thread

260 points scastiel | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Dachande663 ◴[] No.41879983[source]
I love the idea of this but, given the traffic numbers, this could run on a $4 Digital Ocean droplet and have the same result. They've burnt over a grand just to use vercel. Maybe I'm just older but I don't understand the logic here. A basic VPS, setup once, would have the same result and would be neutral in cost (it's how I run my own little free apps). Maybe the author is lucky enough that $100/mo doesn't really affect them or they're happy for it to pay for the convenience (my assumption).
replies(2): >>41880001 #>>41880047 #
scastiel ◴[] No.41880001[source]
Running a database accessed that many times on a $4 Digital Ocean droplet? I'd be very curious to see that ;)

The web hosting costs basically nothing. Most of the cost comes from the database.

replies(12): >>41880056 #>>41880066 #>>41880076 #>>41880501 #>>41880784 #>>41881017 #>>41881172 #>>41881238 #>>41881868 #>>41882316 #>>41884008 #>>41887515 #
1. Saris ◴[] No.41887515[source]
They have under 1k visits per day, unless it's a really heavy app for some reason just about any basic VPS should handle a Webserver + DB for that just fine.

It does feel like the tech community as a whole has forgotten how simple and low resource usage hosting most things is, maybe due to the proliferation of stuff like AWS trying to convince us that we need all this crazy stuff to do it?