I have also found that self-hosting, even with your own hardware, is significantly cheaper than the premium cloud hosting (AWS, etc). We priced out a VM server at my company and we found we could rebuy the hardware for it every FIVE months, just from the cloud hosting costs. And that is if we were decently disciplined about turning VMs on and off every day (which we all knew was a fantasy).
That caused us to strike out the premium providers. Leaving us with the non-premium ones (Digital Ocean, etc), co-locating, or in-house hosting.
The other reason that companies like to use AWS is for liability. If you don’t own the hardware you’re not as responsible for the physical security and maintenance for tons of servers distributed around the world. At least that’s what my employer likes about it. For personal use or smaller companies, I def don’t see the use case of AWS just out of price and complexity.
I hear you. Personally I never understood the appeal of costly hosting at AWS and such. It just always seemed so expensive. The only benefit it provided, imho, is when you legitimately need to scale very quickly or if you’ve got a really huge variance in load.
Everything else? My own servers please, and thank you for reading 😁
What I read so far:
The dynamic scaling is what makes it worth it.
Many of the traditional hosting offerings just give you a monolithic VPS/dedicated hardware.
But if you want to up/downscale depending on peak demand during lunch hour it get’s complicated.
But for peak demand they can assume a certain amount from historical data or expected load for something special (like an exclusive report everyone would like to read about).
And lunch hours arent shifting around much. So you could schedule more load balancing during the hours of 11am to 3pm in advance.
Vegetarians nowadays eat eggs, vegans wear leather and self-hosters do it on someone else’s computer.
I’m old and grumpy and will stick to calling the modern vegetarians lacto-ovo-vegetarians, tell the modern vegans that veganism is a lifestyle not a diet and insist that a VPS on Hetzner is hosted by Hetzner, even if you have to manage and maintain the VM.
I believe you, but many people self host on rented hardware for various reasons. For example “proper” self hosting comes with upfront cost. But self hosting ln a VPS comes with reliability, uptime, predictability. But you’re still the master of the software you host, of backups, etc.
So, running a VM in the cloud is somehow different from “running everything in the cloud”? I’m genuinely confused here, willing to bet I’ve misunderstood something.
Operating and administering your own systems infrastructure requires that your business invest in the people to do so, this builds institutional knowledge which makes the important bit, the data and knowledge, portable. If the VM in the cloud gets too expensive you can use another provider, or you can buy hardware and run it locally. If the VM provider cuts your service you still have access to your data because you never lost control of it. Problems can be fixed by in house staff that don’t suddenly evaporate for arbitrary reasons or have service outages.
If your entire business depends on Microsoft services and it gets too expensive you have no options but to pay more. If your account gets locked then you’re out of business until you can get Microsoft to give you access again. If you want to migrate away, there isn’t another Microsoft to move your data to and you’ve replaced all of your technical staff with a support phone number, which isn’t currently accepting your calls.
It’s a VM that you set up, you have the image yourself, you could put it on a machine in your living room if you had to.
“I’m paying for a colocation of a machine I administer” is very different from “I’ve written my application such that it can only run inside an AWS system”
Solid example. I could pay Lyrasis to host an instance of Archivesspace for me. They’d control updates, backups, etc, I’d just use the web interface to manage my archival collections.
OR I could rent a server, install Archivesspace myself (it’s open source), sysadmin it myself, take on all that headache and control.
They’re both in the cloud, but one’s software as a service (SAaS) and the other is just a Linux box on someone else’s machine. The second is cheaper in my experience, but only if you have someone that can sysadmin it. Otherwise you’ve got a learning curve ahead of you.
(it’s late, so feel free to tell me I’ve misread the thread).
The idea is that your services run on remote systems without regard for what those systems are (as a VM, docker image, etc.) Your architecture is decoupled from theirs - you can run on an Amazon host one week, and a server in your closet the next.
And as a bonus, systems hosted this way are often harder to scrape as they’re all structured differently. Additionally, you can (and should!) take additional measures to protect your data from your provider - something that just can’t be done when the provider controls the data architecture.
The end result is the same:
You control what the machine does. The data as well as backups (assuming you arent using specific hardware offerings but just compute and storage)
Example:
I am done with AWS pricing and Azure gave me a fat stack credits to go over there.
Agnostic VMs could be backed up and migrated over to Azure.
Essentially the same as migrating Hyper-V or VMware to Proxmox-VE
Self hosting doesn’t necessarily imply you need your own hardware.
I have also found that self-hosting, even with your own hardware, is significantly cheaper than the premium cloud hosting (AWS, etc). We priced out a VM server at my company and we found we could rebuy the hardware for it every FIVE months, just from the cloud hosting costs. And that is if we were decently disciplined about turning VMs on and off every day (which we all knew was a fantasy).
That caused us to strike out the premium providers. Leaving us with the non-premium ones (Digital Ocean, etc), co-locating, or in-house hosting.
The other reason that companies like to use AWS is for liability. If you don’t own the hardware you’re not as responsible for the physical security and maintenance for tons of servers distributed around the world. At least that’s what my employer likes about it. For personal use or smaller companies, I def don’t see the use case of AWS just out of price and complexity.
I hear you. Personally I never understood the appeal of costly hosting at AWS and such. It just always seemed so expensive. The only benefit it provided, imho, is when you legitimately need to scale very quickly or if you’ve got a really huge variance in load.
Everything else? My own servers please, and thank you for reading 😁
What I read so far:
The dynamic scaling is what makes it worth it.
Many of the traditional hosting offerings just give you a monolithic VPS/dedicated hardware.
But if you want to up/downscale depending on peak demand during lunch hour it get’s complicated.
How much is this true?
Not only are those clouds expensive, they are also slow.
So perhaps a fifth of the peak hardware would be cheaper than the entire AWD and still more than capable.
How much, I can’t say. Not my pay grade :p
But for peak demand they can assume a certain amount from historical data or expected load for something special (like an exclusive report everyone would like to read about).
And lunch hours arent shifting around much. So you could schedule more load balancing during the hours of 11am to 3pm in advance.
Just depends on your usecase I guess.
I bet it’s great if your business is Spirit Halloween.
Use a Cronjob to turn the servers on or off.
Automate everything you can
Vegetarians nowadays eat eggs, vegans wear leather and self-hosters do it on someone else’s computer.
I’m old and grumpy and will stick to calling the modern vegetarians lacto-ovo-vegetarians, tell the modern vegans that veganism is a lifestyle not a diet and insist that a VPS on Hetzner is hosted by Hetzner, even if you have to manage and maintain the VM.
I’m of the opposite opinion - would you mind elaborating on how a selfhosted-on-nonowned-hardware setup would work?
I believe you, but many people self host on rented hardware for various reasons. For example “proper” self hosting comes with upfront cost. But self hosting ln a VPS comes with reliability, uptime, predictability. But you’re still the master of the software you host, of backups, etc.
So, running a VM in the cloud is somehow different from “running everything in the cloud”? I’m genuinely confused here, willing to bet I’ve misunderstood something.
Operating and administering your own systems infrastructure requires that your business invest in the people to do so, this builds institutional knowledge which makes the important bit, the data and knowledge, portable. If the VM in the cloud gets too expensive you can use another provider, or you can buy hardware and run it locally. If the VM provider cuts your service you still have access to your data because you never lost control of it. Problems can be fixed by in house staff that don’t suddenly evaporate for arbitrary reasons or have service outages.
If your entire business depends on Microsoft services and it gets too expensive you have no options but to pay more. If your account gets locked then you’re out of business until you can get Microsoft to give you access again. If you want to migrate away, there isn’t another Microsoft to move your data to and you’ve replaced all of your technical staff with a support phone number, which isn’t currently accepting your calls.
It’s a VM that you set up, you have the image yourself, you could put it on a machine in your living room if you had to.
“I’m paying for a colocation of a machine I administer” is very different from “I’ve written my application such that it can only run inside an AWS system”
Solid example. I could pay Lyrasis to host an instance of Archivesspace for me. They’d control updates, backups, etc, I’d just use the web interface to manage my archival collections.
OR I could rent a server, install Archivesspace myself (it’s open source), sysadmin it myself, take on all that headache and control.
They’re both in the cloud, but one’s software as a service (SAaS) and the other is just a Linux box on someone else’s machine. The second is cheaper in my experience, but only if you have someone that can sysadmin it. Otherwise you’ve got a learning curve ahead of you.
(it’s late, so feel free to tell me I’ve misread the thread).
The idea is that your services run on remote systems without regard for what those systems are (as a VM, docker image, etc.) Your architecture is decoupled from theirs - you can run on an Amazon host one week, and a server in your closet the next.
And as a bonus, systems hosted this way are often harder to scrape as they’re all structured differently. Additionally, you can (and should!) take additional measures to protect your data from your provider - something that just can’t be done when the provider controls the data architecture.
The end result is the same:
You control what the machine does. The data as well as backups (assuming you arent using specific hardware offerings but just compute and storage)
Example:
I am done with AWS pricing and Azure gave me a fat stack credits to go over there.
Agnostic VMs could be backed up and migrated over to Azure.
Essentially the same as migrating Hyper-V or VMware to Proxmox-VE