4 ms·

Tangent but: Is anyone else noticing that bare metal is getting unbelievably cheap? OVH is well known but there are now many vendors also offering crazy cheap

• zaroth 10y ago
  Paying by the Mbps is a lot cheaper at scale than paying by the GB, so I wouldn't even dismiss the cost benefit for bandwidth either. If all you need or want is hardware, power, and bandwidth I would say you should definitely go dedicated or colo. If your business runs on the value-added services than you don't really have that choice.
• qaq 10y ago
  Bandwidth is drastically cheaper than AWS
  • jacques_chester 10y ago
    It's not quite apples-to-apples. Bare-metal and VPS providers lump all traffic together into a single pool. If you do that with an IaaS, you're nuts. Your static assets (which typically represent the bulk of bytes served) should be served from a blobstore or a CDN, which are priced dramatically cheaper. If your mp4s are served from an EC2 instance instead of S3 or CloudFront, for example, you're keeping warm by setting $100 bills on fire.
    • qaq 10y ago
      S3 10TB transfer 902.16 from dedicated provider 60
      • e12e 10y ago
        Take serverloft as an example - not a low-cost provider. With your 99$/month server with a 1gps uplink you get "flat bandwidth": "Fair Use Policy Use as much bandwidth as required: With all dedicated servers from serverloft, you receive a traffic flat rate free of charge. Here our Fair Use Policy applies, which requires a fair usage of all our resources as well as a reasonable traffic usage. Therefore, in case the bandwidth exceeds 50 TB on a 1 Gbit/s server during the current billing month, we will decrease the bandwidth to 100 Mbit/s. You will be able to monitor you current usage in the customer panel. We will also inform you via e-mail should you approach the 50 TB maximum usage. In this case you can purchase additional bandwidth for $10 per TB in order to extend your traffic usage." So, 99 for the server and 50TB a month. Now if you want to max out your 1gpbs connection, lets say 50% of max (1gbps * 24 * 30 * 60 * 60s/2 TB ~ 160 TB, or a additional commitment of 110 * 10 = 1100+99 = grand total of 1200 dollars a month. How much transfer does that get you out of s3? First off, 160TB out of S3 each month, clocks in at 13227$ for just the bandwidth - not including the any storage. For the price of 160TB on dedicated, you get approximately 12TB on s3 (again without storage). 120TB out from cloudfront? 25693/month. Now, one, low-end box might not be enough to keep everything going, but notice the price difference here. If you bought four "low-end" boxes you'd get 200TB of bandwidth included, and still be paying a lot less than for just the bandwidth on S3. It might even be cheaper to rent dedicated boxes set up as caching proxies, than to serve your data from s3/cloud-front... Now, I'm not saying the cloud doesn't have merit, but just pointing out that the price difference is real.
        • qaq 10y ago
          that was exactly my point :)
          • e12e 10y ago
            Indeed :-) I just felt the need to go and look at some current numbers, from a more expensive host than what I currently use (happy hetzner customer here).
      • jacques_chester 10y ago
        I was wrong. EC2 and S3 are charged at the same rate and your number is what the calculator shows.