5 ms·

AWS has a few pain points in the cost department; especially Traffic is insanely expensive compared to other providers. Hetzner costs about 1$ per TB of Traffic

by zaarn 8y ago

AWS has a few pain points in the cost department; especially Traffic is insanely expensive compared to other providers. Hetzner costs about 1$ per TB of Traffic. EC2 costs 88$ for that amount of outgoing data, Cloudfront 80$, etc. That's not even accounting that Hetzner doesn't bill incoming and internal traffic, which AWS does. There is no way that the little work I need to put up a network on a Hetzner host is worth 80$ the Terabyte of Traffic. I have a regular Traffic usage of between 800GB and 1.4TB each month, AWS would easily double my monthly bill on that single item alone. When you need a lot of CPU and RAM, AWS starts to get very expensive too, I have 128GB of RAM with 12 vCPUs and 2TB storage for about 55$/m, AWS has no comparative offering at even the remotely same price. That is even including the hours I have to spend sysadmin'ing this specific box.

StreamBright 8y ago
This is great, how about adding reliability, availability, redundancy, SLA's and a few things more. How about needing to have a data warehouse, load balancers, SOC compliance? Not all the businesses go for the cheapest option and these decisions are rarely single dimensional. AWS is an integrated solutions for every aspects of an enterprise IT needs. If you try to compare a tiny slice of it with a single dimension comparison you can beat AWS but if you get the full picture it is getting harder to a point when you can't really beat it.
- zaarn 8y ago
  Availability over this year has been about 99.9% for the network, if I need more I can book a server in a different DC and do failovers. There is an SLA you can optionally book. I don't require a data warehouse, load balancers (beyond HAProxy on the same host) or SOC Compliance at the moment, if I need those, I can build them. Not all businesses go for the cheapest option but on the flipside if Amazon costs 80x of other providers, the business will probably just find two sysadmins and contract them for the work. Even if you need bigger, load balancers are available as hardware, they're fairly cheap compared to AWS offerings and come with in-built firewall. Incoming traffic remains free on these. Your ISP will probably peer much cheaper than AWS and Hetzner if you're bringing enough money to justify it. I know several corporations that do their entire IT out of AWS, some of them use inhouse and others scatter their usage across several cloud providers, AWS would likely increase their operating cost by 100x.
  - StreamBright 8y ago
    I guess you just downplay the amount of money you spend on developing your own solutions. What does a load balancer do on the same host anyway? Where is this 80x-100x coming from? It would be impossible to create a 100 times cheaper solution because it would mean there is no margin left for the hosting provider.
    - zaarn 8y ago
      Loadbalancers are useful for more than balancing load, you can distribute traffic to the different endpoints on them. They're fairly good at it. 80x is on traffic costs alone, I've detailed that above; 80$ for 1TB of traffic on AWS, not including incoming traffic costs, 1$ for 1TB of traffic on Hetzner, incoming traffic is free. A 16core/64GB instance (m5.4xlarge) on AWS costs 360$ monthly, a tiny bit cheaper if you buy upfront. I pay 50$ a month for 16core/128GB/2TB. The 2TB storage would have to be paid extra on AWS. The m5a.4xlarge is a tad cheaper at 320$ monthly cost, again not counting for storage and bandwidth costs. I get double the RAM and lots of storage for less than 30% of the cost. So on traffic, it's 80x cheaper, the instance is barely 30% the cost of AWS, and that's not counting the storage costs, which are very high on AWS compared to other providers (OVH, B2). And that only gets cheaper once you buy volume. Of course the number 80-100x doesn't apply to me personally since I'm running a fairly low-scale operation but this all starts to stack up once you go large. A colo is even cheaper than any of these options since you only pay for power used and for hardware once.
      - e12e 8y ago
        To be fair, you should probably account for one or two mirror servers on hetzner for easier, lower latency fail over in case of hw failure (assuming you're talking about dedicated servers, not hetzner cloud). Of course with eg three servers, you might load balance acccross most of those during normal load, just make sure to have enough capacity left over to run with N less servers while you spin up a replacement and/or a disk is replaced etc). Just for a more apples to apples comparison. I guess the reason ppl don't "see" the insane premium clouds place on bandwidth is that bandwidth scales up with (presumably paying) customers. So as long as you're not streaming 4k video... You're happy to let the cloud eat out of the bit of your profits that "scales up".
SonicSoul 8y ago
This is a very interesting dynamic to me. Amazon seems to compete on price with EVERYONE on everything else, yet when it comes to AWS they’re so much more expensive than competition? Is this because their infrastructure is so much more expensive to run at 0 margins?
- zaarn 8y ago
  AWS still offers a very integrated experience and lots of people will simply pick AWS because of the brand name. Most people hosting SaaS or similar on the web don't actually need that much resources so for 98% of startups, I'd bet that AWS isn't the largest entry on their monthly running costs.
- PedroBatista 8y ago
  Their competition is mostly "old" guys who can easily and "cheaply" create and manage their own infrastructure. In other words, when they "educate" young people about "The Cloud" and how is "The Best Way, the Only Way", they win because after a few years people got used to AWS as a fact of life and young professionals don't know how to administer a Linux box anymore.
- 013a 8y ago
  Compare Amazon's (at least network) pricing to Google Cloud or Azure and its roughly competitive. The scale of the networks these companies are building is unlike any of the novice-level stuff companies like Hetzner deploy. As one example, in one region AWS has deployed 5 Pbps of inter-AZ fiber. They build all of their own SDN switches/routers, all the way down to the chips now, for maximum performance and configuration with the AWS API. And don't forget, they maintain a GLOBAL private network; companies like Hetzner or DigitalOcean just peer to the internet to connect their "regions". I'll keep saying this on HN until people start listening: If you buy AWS then complain about price, you might as well go buy a Porsche then complain about the price as well. They're the best. Being the best is expensive.
  - ernsheong 8y ago
    GCP is a real contender for potentially less money. It’s better than AWS in some if not many verticals. So I wouldn’t say AWS is “the best” (definitely not in the UI and user-friendliness department)
aarbor989 8y ago
Not disagreeing with your points, but internal traffic is free between the same AZ on AWS
- zaarn 8y ago
  Ye but I wouldn't know any projects that on AWS would need internal traffic that wouldn't also need instances over AZs/regions.
bluedonuts 8y ago
That's not even accounting that Hetzner doesn't bill incoming and internal traffic, which AWS does. This is incorrect. AWS does not charge for incoming traffic nor does it charge for internal traffic within the same zone.
- zaarn 8y ago
  In an old project I had 2.8TB of transfer per month between DCs (ie zones in AWS). The hoster provided that service for free, AWS bills this for 20$. Incoming traffic is charged on a few AWS applications, not EC2, but some do. That doesn't really change the point though; AWS Networking is magnitudes more expensive than competitors and they bill for things that are accepted as part of the service in other places.

by zaarn 8y ago

StreamBright 8y ago

This is great, how about adding reliability, availability, redundancy, SLA's and a few things more. How about needing to have a data warehouse, load balancers, SOC compliance? Not all the businesses go for the cheapest option and these decisions are rarely single dimensional. AWS is an integrated solutions for every aspects of an enterprise IT needs. If you try to compare a tiny slice of it with a single dimension comparison you can beat AWS but if you get the full picture it is getting harder to a point when you can't really beat it.

zaarn 8y ago
Availability over this year has been about 99.9% for the network, if I need more I can book a server in a different DC and do failovers. There is an SLA you can optionally book. I don't require a data warehouse, load balancers (beyond HAProxy on the same host) or SOC Compliance at the moment, if I need those, I can build them. Not all businesses go for the cheapest option but on the flipside if Amazon costs 80x of other providers, the business will probably just find two sysadmins and contract them for the work. Even if you need bigger, load balancers are available as hardware, they're fairly cheap compared to AWS offerings and come with in-built firewall. Incoming traffic remains free on these. Your ISP will probably peer much cheaper than AWS and Hetzner if you're bringing enough money to justify it. I know several corporations that do their entire IT out of AWS, some of them use inhouse and others scatter their usage across several cloud providers, AWS would likely increase their operating cost by 100x.
- StreamBright 8y ago
  I guess you just downplay the amount of money you spend on developing your own solutions. What does a load balancer do on the same host anyway? Where is this 80x-100x coming from? It would be impossible to create a 100 times cheaper solution because it would mean there is no margin left for the hosting provider.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    Loadbalancers are useful for more than balancing load, you can distribute traffic to the different endpoints on them. They're fairly good at it. 80x is on traffic costs alone, I've detailed that above; 80$ for 1TB of traffic on AWS, not including incoming traffic costs, 1$ for 1TB of traffic on Hetzner, incoming traffic is free. A 16core/64GB instance (m5.4xlarge) on AWS costs 360$ monthly, a tiny bit cheaper if you buy upfront. I pay 50$ a month for 16core/128GB/2TB. The 2TB storage would have to be paid extra on AWS. The m5a.4xlarge is a tad cheaper at 320$ monthly cost, again not counting for storage and bandwidth costs. I get double the RAM and lots of storage for less than 30% of the cost. So on traffic, it's 80x cheaper, the instance is barely 30% the cost of AWS, and that's not counting the storage costs, which are very high on AWS compared to other providers (OVH, B2). And that only gets cheaper once you buy volume. Of course the number 80-100x doesn't apply to me personally since I'm running a fairly low-scale operation but this all starts to stack up once you go large. A colo is even cheaper than any of these options since you only pay for power used and for hardware once.
    - e12e 8y ago
      To be fair, you should probably account for one or two mirror servers on hetzner for easier, lower latency fail over in case of hw failure (assuming you're talking about dedicated servers, not hetzner cloud). Of course with eg three servers, you might load balance acccross most of those during normal load, just make sure to have enough capacity left over to run with N less servers while you spin up a replacement and/or a disk is replaced etc). Just for a more apples to apples comparison. I guess the reason ppl don't "see" the insane premium clouds place on bandwidth is that bandwidth scales up with (presumably paying) customers. So as long as you're not streaming 4k video... You're happy to let the cloud eat out of the bit of your profits that "scales up".

SonicSoul 8y ago

This is a very interesting dynamic to me. Amazon seems to compete on price with EVERYONE on everything else, yet when it comes to AWS they’re so much more expensive than competition? Is this because their infrastructure is so much more expensive to run at 0 margins?

zaarn 8y ago
AWS still offers a very integrated experience and lots of people will simply pick AWS because of the brand name. Most people hosting SaaS or similar on the web don't actually need that much resources so for 98% of startups, I'd bet that AWS isn't the largest entry on their monthly running costs.
PedroBatista 8y ago
Their competition is mostly "old" guys who can easily and "cheaply" create and manage their own infrastructure. In other words, when they "educate" young people about "The Cloud" and how is "The Best Way, the Only Way", they win because after a few years people got used to AWS as a fact of life and young professionals don't know how to administer a Linux box anymore.
013a 8y ago
Compare Amazon's (at least network) pricing to Google Cloud or Azure and its roughly competitive. The scale of the networks these companies are building is unlike any of the novice-level stuff companies like Hetzner deploy. As one example, in one region AWS has deployed 5 Pbps of inter-AZ fiber. They build all of their own SDN switches/routers, all the way down to the chips now, for maximum performance and configuration with the AWS API. And don't forget, they maintain a GLOBAL private network; companies like Hetzner or DigitalOcean just peer to the internet to connect their "regions". I'll keep saying this on HN until people start listening: If you buy AWS then complain about price, you might as well go buy a Porsche then complain about the price as well. They're the best. Being the best is expensive.
- ernsheong 8y ago
  GCP is a real contender for potentially less money. It’s better than AWS in some if not many verticals. So I wouldn’t say AWS is “the best” (definitely not in the UI and user-friendliness department)

aarbor989 8y ago

Not disagreeing with your points, but internal traffic is free between the same AZ on AWS

zaarn 8y ago
Ye but I wouldn't know any projects that on AWS would need internal traffic that wouldn't also need instances over AZs/regions.

bluedonuts 8y ago

That's not even accounting that Hetzner doesn't bill incoming and internal traffic, which AWS does. This is incorrect. AWS does not charge for incoming traffic nor does it charge for internal traffic within the same zone.

zaarn 8y ago
In an old project I had 2.8TB of transfer per month between DCs (ie zones in AWS). The hoster provided that service for free, AWS bills this for 20$. Incoming traffic is charged on a few AWS applications, not EC2, but some do. That doesn't really change the point though; AWS Networking is magnitudes more expensive than competitors and they bill for things that are accepted as part of the service in other places.