2 ms·

we have containers for that now right?

• the_duke 10y ago
  If you are hosting many small apache/php/mysql based sites, you most certainly do not want to run a seperate server instance for each...
  • marktangotango 10y ago
    Unfortunate the parent was downvoted, it's a valid conjecture, and a consequence of "containerize all the things" not a lot of people think through. Simply answer the question; how many containers can any particular machine host? Ten's or hundreds? Depends on the hardware obviously, but there is a limit. So if each container is a paying customer, and you're in the busines of hosting containers (ie hyper.sh), that dictates your hardware/profit ratio. Then consider a single multi-tenant server (ie apache hosting 10,000 low to medium use shared sites on the same hardware). Vastly more potential users (paying customers) on the same hardware. Obviously this story has already played out and shared hosting has been in decline for years due to problems with the model; resource starvation (more active sites hogging cpu etc) and flexibility (cpanel). With containers you get so many benefits; infinite customizable, easy provisioning and deployment, tool support, etc. But the value proposition remains. Multi tenant servers make so much sense (and potentially a lot more money per hardware unit), but resource limiting (cpu, heap, disk, io) at the application level has never been implemented to really make a a viable option. OS level limiting (ie cpulimit) is available, and that's what container hosts use for resource limiting. My conjecture is that a suitable multi tenant server that can limit heap, cpu, and io at the account level should lower hosting costs by at least an order of magnitude. WHy pay $5 a month for a small container when you can pay $5 a year?