←back to thread

461 points thunderbong | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.268s | source
Show context
icemelt8 ◴[] No.42133872[source]
ever since I learnt self-hosting, it feels so liberating
replies(6): >>42133941 #>>42133957 #>>42133976 #>>42134026 #>>42134034 #>>42134064 #
braza ◴[] No.42133957[source]
> ever since I learnt self-hosting, it feels so liberating

+1

Last year I went to self-hosting and I felt the same. I paid less than USD 2000 for a small laptop that I use as a server plus a home NAS and by my current utilization I got in 3 months the return plus the ownership and flexibility.

replies(1): >>42134080 #
hereonout2 ◴[] No.42134080[source]
I'm old and was self hosting 20 years ago, but we're comparing apples to oranges a bit here!

Using AWS for smaller personal projects will always be more expensive and probably less fun.

On the other hand I recently had to run an ML model over hundreds of thousands of media files. I used AWS to launch 100s of GPUs using spot instances and complete the job in a few hours, then just turned it all off and moved on. It cost a few hundred dollars total.

In my mind it's at this kind of scale AWS really makes sense.

replies(1): >>42134494 #
1. wiether ◴[] No.42134494[source]
On the other hand, for some serverless services, it makes sense to use AWS instead of self-hosting.

I've deployed multiple Lambda for many years and I have yet to pay anything for them given how _generous_ their free tier is.

Nowadays I must be at around ~100 Lambda executions per day and my billing for Lambda is still $0/month.

To achieve something similar with self-hosting it would require me to have a server running 24/7 just to allow my code running when needed.

So, almost as with everything else in tech (and life in general), the idea is to not see AWS or self-hosting as the best tools for everything. Sometimes AWS is better, sometimes self-hosting is.

Having the freedom to pick the best one in each situation is quite nice!