3 ms·

"> but is using one of the major cloud services cheaper than running your own? At list prices? Pretty much never. " ??? It's almost always 'cheaper' for smal

"> but is using one of the major cloud services cheaper than running your own? At list prices? Pretty much never. " ??? It's almost always 'cheaper' for small companies to use the cloud. It costs a lot of money to pay people to figure what hardware to buy, install servers, networking gear, maintain it, pay for bandwidth, backup etc. But the cost becomes 'non starter' when you start to access all the nice things that cloud offers: Lambdas, S3, easy backups, etc. etc. and the fact that it 'scales on demand'. Then of course there are the financing aspects: you don't pay for expensive servers up front, you 'lease' them effectively - which has serious working capital benefits. All those things have considerable business value. So sure - if you want to compare only 'server instance costs' - maybe 'buying your own instance' - specifically on a server by server basis ... maybe it's cheaper to buy a server. But for most small businesses - the advantage of the cloud far outweighs the cost. I'd argue that 'rolling your own infrastructure' would be risky and costly initiative that boils down to a 'cost optimization' only, and can't really be considered until a business reaches an operational degree of maturity and visibility wherein someone could really sit down and plan quite far into the future. And even then I'm not so sure - this is why so many big and successful companies still use the cloud.

kbenson 10y ago
There is some variance in how people interpret "cloud". Does colocating your own machine at a remote ISP constitute being in the "cloud"? What about leasing a server? What about a virtual server, but a traditional one where it's essentially no different than a single leased server? What if your multiple real and/or virtual leased servers are in the same private network at the remote location? What if there's an API available to you (even if it deploys hardware servers)? What if extra services, such as storage, can be attached? Different people will likely consider "cloud computing" to apply at different thresholds with different features. I also consider "in the cloud" (handled remotely in the internet) to be different than "cloud computing" (handled by a cloud service), and "cloud services" to me could mean either one depending on context. I find most your statements apply truthfully to what I consider "in the cloud", that is, remote hosting. I don't think they necessarily apply when used with "cloud services" platforms. All of a sudden, all the money you save not having to deal with hardware and paying someone to configure and maintain it is either back (you need someone to deal with the craziness of each cloud services platform, and they might cost more), or offset by higher costs, if you don't have a business case that requires you be able to scale later, or add network storage, etc. Better yet, if all you need is a website, there's plenty of services that do away with all that to just provide hosting of various sizing and shapes. Is that a "cloud service"? Is that a cloud service? Probably, but in a conversation about GCE and AWS, maybe it's not actually what's being talked about.
Veratyr 10y ago
> It costs a lot of money to pay people to figure what hardware to buy, install servers, networking gear, maintain it, pay for bandwidth, backup etc. > Then of course there are the financing aspects: you don't pay for expensive servers up front, you 'lease' them effectively - which has serious working capital benefits. There are solutions other than cloud and going to the extreme of owning servers, switches, maintenance, bandwidth and space in a datacenter. OVH (an example due to my familiarity) will sell you a dedicated server with 2 x E5 2650v3, 256GB of RAM, 4TB of disk and 500Mbit guaranteed bandwidth (1Gbps burst) for $269/mo. This includes most of the annoying stuff, like replacing failed components, dealing with network issues and such. The bandwidth, conveniently, is also not limited aside from the speed you're given. You can use 500Mbit/s for every second of a month if you want. That's 164TB. The cost of a n1-highmem-32, which is the closest alternative I could find on GCE is $1030/mo, plus disk ($348/mo for 2TB), plus bandwidth (164TB is $13k from Google). Also, the cost of owning and running your own hardware isn't necessarily expensive, particularly if you're small. When you're running a fleet of thousands, yes, you definitely want dedicated people for that. When you can fit all your infrastructure in a single rack, it's not much trouble to call up Dell and ask for a quote, install it in a local DC then forget about it. Most DCs give you "remote" or "smart" hands that can do basic maintenance like swapping a failed HDD for low or no cost. Dedicated/colocation aren't for everyone but they're certainly not as scary as some people around here seem to think. And in terms of cost, I daresay that if you're doing anything bandwidth heavy, the cloud is near-certainly costing you insane amounts of money. You can get decent gigabit transit (~300TB/mo) these days for $400/mo while Google, Amazon etc. charge in the thousands for that kind of traffic.
btian 10y ago
And for many big and successful companies that don't use the cloud, the only reason is because cloud didn't exist when they built their services. If you're starting from scratch today, cloud is a no brainer.
vidarh 10y ago
> It costs a lot of money to pay people to figure what hardware to buy, install servers, networking gear, maintain it, pay for bandwidth, backup etc. That's part of what I do for a living, yet my clients tends to have recovered my fees in 2-3 months from the savings they make on reduced hosting costs. Those savings include factoring in the ongoing operational costs. 50%+ savings is not unusual. We've achieved 90% in rare cases (high bandwidth requirements - bandwidth costs are extreme at the cloud providers). > But the cost becomes 'non starter' when you start to access all the nice things that cloud offers: Lambdas, S3, easy backups, etc. etc. and the fact that it 'scales on demand'. Nothing in a bare metal setup precludes you from using cloud functionality when/where it makes economic sense to do that rather than implement an alternative. I have plenty of hybrid setups running. > Then of course there are the financing aspects: you don't pay for expensive servers up front, you 'lease' them effectively - which has serious working capital benefits. That's what we do when we use colocated servers too. There is no difference there. > So sure - if you want to compare only 'server instance costs' - maybe 'buying your own instance' - specifically on a server by server basis ... maybe it's cheaper to buy a server. I'm not comparing only server instance costs. I'm comparing total cost of operating fully managed environments, including total staff costs including staff overheads. > I'd argue that 'rolling your own infrastructure' You don't need to roll your own infrastructure - you can go to managed hosting providers, or the multitude of consultancies like mine that will do it for you. Heck, I'll happily sign deals with people where I'm paid in a given percent of the saving I generate, because the savings are large and predictable. > And even then I'm not so sure - this is why so many big and successful companies still use the cloud. Big, successful companies don't pay the published rates. I have direct knowledge of companies with 75%+ discounts from major cloud providers. At those rates: yes, it is cost effective.

kbenson 10y ago

There is some variance in how people interpret "cloud". Does colocating your own machine at a remote ISP constitute being in the "cloud"? What about leasing a server? What about a virtual server, but a traditional one where it's essentially no different than a single leased server? What if your multiple real and/or virtual leased servers are in the same private network at the remote location? What if there's an API available to you (even if it deploys hardware servers)? What if extra services, such as storage, can be attached? Different people will likely consider "cloud computing" to apply at different thresholds with different features. I also consider "in the cloud" (handled remotely in the internet) to be different than "cloud computing" (handled by a cloud service), and "cloud services" to me could mean either one depending on context. I find most your statements apply truthfully to what I consider "in the cloud", that is, remote hosting. I don't think they necessarily apply when used with "cloud services" platforms. All of a sudden, all the money you save not having to deal with hardware and paying someone to configure and maintain it is either back (you need someone to deal with the craziness of each cloud services platform, and they might cost more), or offset by higher costs, if you don't have a business case that requires you be able to scale later, or add network storage, etc. Better yet, if all you need is a website, there's plenty of services that do away with all that to just provide hosting of various sizing and shapes. Is that a "cloud service"? Is that a cloud service? Probably, but in a conversation about GCE and AWS, maybe it's not actually what's being talked about.

Veratyr 10y ago

> It costs a lot of money to pay people to figure what hardware to buy, install servers, networking gear, maintain it, pay for bandwidth, backup etc. > Then of course there are the financing aspects: you don't pay for expensive servers up front, you 'lease' them effectively - which has serious working capital benefits. There are solutions other than cloud and going to the extreme of owning servers, switches, maintenance, bandwidth and space in a datacenter. OVH (an example due to my familiarity) will sell you a dedicated server with 2 x E5 2650v3, 256GB of RAM, 4TB of disk and 500Mbit guaranteed bandwidth (1Gbps burst) for $269/mo. This includes most of the annoying stuff, like replacing failed components, dealing with network issues and such. The bandwidth, conveniently, is also not limited aside from the speed you're given. You can use 500Mbit/s for every second of a month if you want. That's 164TB. The cost of a n1-highmem-32, which is the closest alternative I could find on GCE is $1030/mo, plus disk ($348/mo for 2TB), plus bandwidth (164TB is $13k from Google). Also, the cost of owning and running your own hardware isn't necessarily expensive, particularly if you're small. When you're running a fleet of thousands, yes, you definitely want dedicated people for that. When you can fit all your infrastructure in a single rack, it's not much trouble to call up Dell and ask for a quote, install it in a local DC then forget about it. Most DCs give you "remote" or "smart" hands that can do basic maintenance like swapping a failed HDD for low or no cost. Dedicated/colocation aren't for everyone but they're certainly not as scary as some people around here seem to think. And in terms of cost, I daresay that if you're doing anything bandwidth heavy, the cloud is near-certainly costing you insane amounts of money. You can get decent gigabit transit (~300TB/mo) these days for $400/mo while Google, Amazon etc. charge in the thousands for that kind of traffic.

btian 10y ago

And for many big and successful companies that don't use the cloud, the only reason is because cloud didn't exist when they built their services. If you're starting from scratch today, cloud is a no brainer.

vidarh 10y ago

> It costs a lot of money to pay people to figure what hardware to buy, install servers, networking gear, maintain it, pay for bandwidth, backup etc. That's part of what I do for a living, yet my clients tends to have recovered my fees in 2-3 months from the savings they make on reduced hosting costs. Those savings include factoring in the ongoing operational costs. 50%+ savings is not unusual. We've achieved 90% in rare cases (high bandwidth requirements - bandwidth costs are extreme at the cloud providers). > But the cost becomes 'non starter' when you start to access all the nice things that cloud offers: Lambdas, S3, easy backups, etc. etc. and the fact that it 'scales on demand'. Nothing in a bare metal setup precludes you from using cloud functionality when/where it makes economic sense to do that rather than implement an alternative. I have plenty of hybrid setups running. > Then of course there are the financing aspects: you don't pay for expensive servers up front, you 'lease' them effectively - which has serious working capital benefits. That's what we do when we use colocated servers too. There is no difference there. > So sure - if you want to compare only 'server instance costs' - maybe 'buying your own instance' - specifically on a server by server basis ... maybe it's cheaper to buy a server. I'm not comparing only server instance costs. I'm comparing total cost of operating fully managed environments, including total staff costs including staff overheads. > I'd argue that 'rolling your own infrastructure' You don't need to roll your own infrastructure - you can go to managed hosting providers, or the multitude of consultancies like mine that will do it for you. Heck, I'll happily sign deals with people where I'm paid in a given percent of the saving I generate, because the savings are large and predictable. > And even then I'm not so sure - this is why so many big and successful companies still use the cloud. Big, successful companies don't pay the published rates. I have direct knowledge of companies with 75%+ discounts from major cloud providers. At those rates: yes, it is cost effective.