4 ms·
I think it depends of your scale. On most cases the real hosting cost for a dedicated barebone is administrating and managing the server. So if you need 100 ded
by mijamo 7y ago
I think it depends of your scale. On most cases the real hosting cost for a dedicated barebone is administrating and managing the server. So if you need 100 dedicated 20 core server it is most likely cheaper to do that yourself, but if you need just one it is much much cheaper to use some cloud service.
- 1337shadow 7y agoI don't think you ever "just need one", for me one is always two : staging (and ci, by extension ..) and production. Provisioning an EC2 instance or a dedicated server just has the same cost in terms of manhour: running some automation in deployment pipeline, is something that you'll have to setup and maintain. Be it updating a docker-compose file over ssh with ansible or something else: you have to do it anyway. If you want to cut that cost perhaps try with a starter project from OpenShift or Heroku, but that will also have a bigger cost even than an EC2 instance, and you will still have to take time to ensure your deployment is properly automated, with automated backups as part of the process.
- chupy 7y ago> I don't think you ever "just need one", for me one is always two : staging (and ci, by extension ..) and production. It's always at least two in production if you ever need it to be HA.
- 1337shadow 7y agoMost project never get to the point where they need more than 99.9% which is perfectly feasible with a single server. Interesting remark nonetheless.
- erik_seaberg 7y agoProd needs n + 2 if you want to survive losing one (machine, datacenter, whatever) while you have one out for maintenance. Buying three when you need one is pretty expensive; buying seven when you need five isn't as big a deal. Staging just needs n > 1 to test that sharding works at all.