7 ms·

I know people are itching to jump to the conclusion that bare metal is ultimately way cheaper than cloud, but really, it isn’t. At the end of the day, we want

by xwdv 6y ago

I know people are itching to jump to the conclusion that bare metal is ultimately way cheaper than cloud, but really, it isn’t. At the end of the day, we want operating expenses, not capital expenses. And if you purchase a ton of bare metal and suddenly your business needs change it will not be easy or quick to move that much metal or install new metal in place. Stick to the cloud.

adrianN 6y ago
Why not both? Most businesses have a fairly stable baseload need for computing. Replacing EC2 instances with bare metal to satisfy that seems to make sense to me.
christophilus 6y ago
Eh. Most businesses don’t really need big scale. I build exclusively in the cloud, but the app I maintain could easily run on a single $2k server, with the possible exception of image resizing.
- BubRoss 6y ago
  You would have to be resizing a tremendous amount of images to overwhelm a $2k server.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Or a very inefficient implementation.
    - ies7 6y ago
      For comparation, 2 years ago we build thumbor-like apps in python using vibora and opencv. A single aws m8 large($80/month?) can serve hundred millions images resizing in a month. At that time we build it with only 2 people, copy pasting code from internet in a few days and vibora’s github readme also state that its in alpha release. With $2K server, you need to cheat to make those inefficient implementation :) Side note: Several weeks later I found out about thumbor and replace our ‘emergency work’ with dockerized thumbor I also tinkered with thumbot in aws lambda. But the cost raised to $500/month. I think we did something wrong with aws rekognition.
- maallooc 6y ago
  There's a high chance that running 100 times of your app's load won't even use 10% of the $2k server.
- xwdv 6y ago
  You don’t need a server period for image resizing, that should really be a lambda function in AWS. Super cheap.
eloff 6y ago
The cost per query difference of cloud versus bare metal, in the article is over ten times. That kind of margin gives a lot of room for error. You could literally over provision by an order of magnitude and come out on top. There's plenty of hidden costs though of doing this yourself that need a certain level of scale to pay off. Like people to manage the hardware, that's a big one. Still renting bare metal servers from e.g. Packet could make much more sense even for small companies than using AWS.
- zkirill 6y ago
  Are there any services that help you buy the bare metal outright, set it up at a colo, and maintain it for you?
  - ies7 6y ago
    Hetzner, Vultr, Ovhcloud
    - zkirill 6y ago
      I can't find where Hetzner helps you procure the bare-metal. Only receive it and install it for you.
- watsocd 6y ago
  renting small servers...much more sense even for small companies No. At one time over 10 years ago, I had a dedicated server with one of the hosting companies. They charged me $225/month. I moved to AWS and my cost dropped to ~$30/month. Even now, 10 years later, my total AWS bill for primarily EC2 and RDS services that runs an application that pays my bills is ~$75 per month. If my company suddenly went viral and had a bunch of new customers, I could scale up instantly.
  - eloff 6y ago
    I'm not talking about hobby projects, which also aren't a great fit for AWS. Use digital ocean, vultr, or linode. I'm talking about startups with over $10k/year in spend.
panarky 6y ago
> we want operating expenses, not capital expenses Ultimately it's all capex. The choice is whether the capital asset is on your balance sheet or someone else's. If someone else is tying up their capital in a depreciating and inflexible asset, they'll demand to be paid well for giving you the flexibility to avoid all of that. So you can't really say opex is always better than capex, since it depends on the price you're willing to pay for that flexibility.
ashtonkem 6y ago
Ultimately whether or not a company should be using bare metal vs. the cloud is actually a financial decision, not a technical one. There are some technical decisions that can be made to reduce the risk of changes and/or a mixed use case, but ultimately the difference for most businesses is going to be up to the CFO.
- yayr 6y ago
  The article makes a good point, that it is not only a financial decision (b/s vs pnl, risk premium etc) but as well an architectural and functional one. No CFO usually has a good enough understanding of the intricacies of those risks.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    That’s fair, although wise architectural choices can help isolate the technical and financial decisions from each other. For example I think this is the strongest argument for k8s; it gives you the ability to isolate your compute from the underlying infrastructure.
jjeaff 6y ago
You are creating a false dichotomy. If you aren't a mature company like expensify that can pretty accurately predict your needs, then you can rent bare metal for nearly as cheap as buying it. Probably cheaper if you don't have any special needs and commodity hardware will do.

by xwdv 6y ago

adrianN 6y ago

Why not both? Most businesses have a fairly stable baseload need for computing. Replacing EC2 instances with bare metal to satisfy that seems to make sense to me.

christophilus 6y ago

Eh. Most businesses don’t really need big scale. I build exclusively in the cloud, but the app I maintain could easily run on a single $2k server, with the possible exception of image resizing.

BubRoss 6y ago
You would have to be resizing a tremendous amount of images to overwhelm a $2k server.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Or a very inefficient implementation.
  - ies7 6y ago
    For comparation, 2 years ago we build thumbor-like apps in python using vibora and opencv. A single aws m8 large($80/month?) can serve hundred millions images resizing in a month. At that time we build it with only 2 people, copy pasting code from internet in a few days and vibora’s github readme also state that its in alpha release. With $2K server, you need to cheat to make those inefficient implementation :) Side note: Several weeks later I found out about thumbor and replace our ‘emergency work’ with dockerized thumbor I also tinkered with thumbot in aws lambda. But the cost raised to $500/month. I think we did something wrong with aws rekognition.
maallooc 6y ago
There's a high chance that running 100 times of your app's load won't even use 10% of the $2k server.
xwdv 6y ago
You don’t need a server period for image resizing, that should really be a lambda function in AWS. Super cheap.

eloff 6y ago

The cost per query difference of cloud versus bare metal, in the article is over ten times. That kind of margin gives a lot of room for error. You could literally over provision by an order of magnitude and come out on top. There's plenty of hidden costs though of doing this yourself that need a certain level of scale to pay off. Like people to manage the hardware, that's a big one. Still renting bare metal servers from e.g. Packet could make much more sense even for small companies than using AWS.

zkirill 6y ago
Are there any services that help you buy the bare metal outright, set it up at a colo, and maintain it for you?
- ies7 6y ago
  Hetzner, Vultr, Ovhcloud
  - zkirill 6y ago
    I can't find where Hetzner helps you procure the bare-metal. Only receive it and install it for you.
watsocd 6y ago
renting small servers...much more sense even for small companies No. At one time over 10 years ago, I had a dedicated server with one of the hosting companies. They charged me $225/month. I moved to AWS and my cost dropped to ~$30/month. Even now, 10 years later, my total AWS bill for primarily EC2 and RDS services that runs an application that pays my bills is ~$75 per month. If my company suddenly went viral and had a bunch of new customers, I could scale up instantly.
- eloff 6y ago
  I'm not talking about hobby projects, which also aren't a great fit for AWS. Use digital ocean, vultr, or linode. I'm talking about startups with over $10k/year in spend.

panarky 6y ago

> we want operating expenses, not capital expenses Ultimately it's all capex. The choice is whether the capital asset is on your balance sheet or someone else's. If someone else is tying up their capital in a depreciating and inflexible asset, they'll demand to be paid well for giving you the flexibility to avoid all of that. So you can't really say opex is always better than capex, since it depends on the price you're willing to pay for that flexibility.

ashtonkem 6y ago

Ultimately whether or not a company should be using bare metal vs. the cloud is actually a financial decision, not a technical one. There are some technical decisions that can be made to reduce the risk of changes and/or a mixed use case, but ultimately the difference for most businesses is going to be up to the CFO.

yayr 6y ago
The article makes a good point, that it is not only a financial decision (b/s vs pnl, risk premium etc) but as well an architectural and functional one. No CFO usually has a good enough understanding of the intricacies of those risks.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  That’s fair, although wise architectural choices can help isolate the technical and financial decisions from each other. For example I think this is the strongest argument for k8s; it gives you the ability to isolate your compute from the underlying infrastructure.

jjeaff 6y ago

You are creating a false dichotomy. If you aren't a mature company like expensify that can pretty accurately predict your needs, then you can rent bare metal for nearly as cheap as buying it. Probably cheaper if you don't have any special needs and commodity hardware will do.