8 ms·
If you're going for low cost, you could do better: https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/dell/dx181/configurator https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-roots
by jonatron 5y ago
If you're going for low cost, you could do better:
https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/dell/dx181/configurator https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/dell/dx181/conf...
Basic configuration in Finland 1 224,91 €
1.92 TB SATA SSD Datacenter Edition 4 95,20 €
320,11 €
320 Euro equals 385.90 United States Dollar
- gallexme 5y agoDepending on the requirements https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/ax101/ https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/ax101/ May be an actually better fit Once they available again
- ddorian43 5y agoYou'll be waiting 1+ month to get the server above.
- jiofih 5y agoHoly smokes. 8TB SSD + 128GB RAM + Ryzen 9 for 100 euro a month. Can you get anywhere close to this with AWS or even DO?
- kuschku 5y agoOf course not. But that's why the "cloud" (as in the typical DO/AWS/Azure/GCP offerings) are a scam.
- marcinzm 5y agoJust because you don't understand the value proposition of something doesn't make it a scam.
- Retric 5y agoAWS is a scam not because it can’t save you money, but because they actively try to trick you into spending more money. That’s practically the definition of a scam. Go to the AWS console and try to answer even simply things like how much did the last hour/day/week cost me? Or how about some notifications if that new service you just added is going to cost vastly more than you where expecting. I know of a few people getting fired after migrating to AWS and it’s not because the company was suddenly saving money.
- marcinzm 5y agoAWs is pretty bad at telling you how much something you're not running will cost if you run it but I've never had any issues knowing what something has cost me in the past. >Go to the AWS console and try to answer even simply things like how much did the last hour/day/week cost me? Click user@account in top right, click My Billing Dashboard, spend this month is on that page in giant font, click Cost Explorer for more granular breakdown (day, service, etc.), click Bill Details for list breakdown of spend by month. >Or how about some notifications if that new service you just added is going to cost vastly more than you where expecting. Billing Dashboard and then Budgets. edit: This assumes you have permissions to see billing details, by default non-root accounts do not which might be why you're confused.
- Retric 5y ago> Click user@account in top right, click My Billing Dashboard, spend this month is on that page in giant font, click Cost Explorer for more granular breakdown (day, service, etc.), click Bill Details for list breakdown of spend by month. Sure, you see a number but I was just talking with someone at AWS who said it you still can’t trust it to be up to date especially across zone boundaries. That means it’s useful when everything is working as expected but can be actively misleading when troubleshooting.
- fulmicoton 5y agoThat's amazing pricing O_O (drooling)
- heipei 5y agoThe sad story is you can't get anywhere close to this even with rented dedicated servers. As a German I'm happy that we have Hetzner and I use their services extensively. However if I wanted to start deploying things in the US or Asia I'd be forced to go with something like OVH which, while still a lot cheaper than AWS, is still significantly more expensive than Hetzner.
- wongarsu 5y agoOn AWS you can't get 128GB RAM on anything for less than $300/month (or nearly $500 on-demand). And to get multiple TB of SSD you need significantly larger instances, north of $1000/month. Similar with DO, the closest equivalent is a 3.52GB SSD, 128GB RAM, 16 vCPU droplet for $1240/month. If you need raw power instead of integration into an extensive service ecosystem, dedicated servers are hard to beat (short of colocating your own hardware, which comes with more headache). And Hetzner is among the best in terms of value/money.
- potiuper 5y agoWhy a Ryzen instead of an Epyc in a data center?
- hansel_der 5y agob/c it's a cheap hoster. they use a lot of desktop cpu's. afaik their most popular product is the EX4x line with a i7-6700.
- gallexme 5y agoAlso cause the 5950x is likely for many workloads faster which do not linearly scale across more cores than a zen2 epyc (since zen3 has huge singlethread performance improvements)
- Fgffhjj 5y agoHetzner is known for this. I had a hetzner server for years and now again. Normal consumer hardware without any magic for very good prices. I made even 10tb traffic and run Rosetta 24/7 for 2 years without any issues. Just expect downtime if that's your only server and it breaks. The last few years it got really crazy what you get for 50bucks a month.
- blobster 5y agoThe value for money that Hetzner offer is just mind boggling.
- Bellamy 5y agoThis my next server.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- fulmicoton 5y agoThis is a complex misunderstanding... First, we are getting better throughput from S3 than I we were using a SATA SSD. (and slower than a NVMe SSD). This is a bit of a secret. Of course, single sequential throughput on S3 sucks. At the end of the day the data is stored on spining disk and we cannot do anything against the law physics. ... but we can concurrently read many disks using s3. Network is our only bottleneck. The theoretical upper bound on our instances is 2GB/s. On throughput intensive 1s query, we observe an average of 1GB/s. Also you are not accounting for replication. S3 costs include battle tested, multi-DC replication. Last but not least, S3 trivially decouples compute and storage. It means that we can host 100 different indices on S3, and use the same pool of search server to deal with the CPU-bound stuff. This last bit is really what drives the price an extra 5x down for many use case.
- 2Gkashmiri 5y agoHow about setting up minio on these hertzner setups? You get benefit of s3 on cheap hardware without aws costs
- fulmicoton 5y agoAbsolutely! I want to try that.. We are especially interested in testing the latency minio could offer.
- plater 5y ago"S3 costs include battle tested, multi-DC replication." Sometimes we pay a bit too much for this multi-replication, battle tested stuff. It's not like the probability of loosing data is THAT huge. For the 4x extra cost you could easily take a backup every 24h. "It means that we can host 100 different indices on S3, and use the same pool of search server to deal with the CPU-bound stuff" You can do that with NFS. It's amazing how much we are willing to pay for a bunch of computers in the cloud. Leasing a new car costs around $350/month. You could have three new cars at your disposal for the same price as this search implementation.
- onebot 5y agoI am really starting to feel that co-location will make a big comeback. It seems cloud costs are just becoming too high for the convenience they once offered. For small projects and scale probably makes a ton of sense, but at some point the costs to scale aren't worth the up front developer cost savings.
- fulmicoton 5y agoIt depends on the use case does not it. Shared nothing is the best architecture for e-commerce search for instance. But if you have one query every minutes or so for a 1TB dataset, it feels a bit silly to have a couple of servers dedicated to it doesn't it? Imagine this is the case for all big data search you can think of... Logs, emails, etc. This is a waste of CPU and RAM.
- curryst 5y agoWhere they get you is that it very rarely makes financial sense to do both cloud and colo/on-prem (unless you're a massive company). It ends up being way more expensive to use the cloud, but also hire engineers to work on making an on-prem cloud. Most companies have a mixed bag of projects that are either better served by the cloud, or are okay with colo and the savings it can bring. Assuming you don't want to do a hybrid approach, then you either push everyone onto the cloud and accept paying more, or you push everyone into colo and force the small and scaling out projects to deal with stuff like having to order hardware 3 months in advance. Then, depending on how nice you want it to be to interact with your infrastructure, you can end up paying a lot to have people build abstractions over it. Do you want developers to be able to create their own database from a merge request or API call? If so, now you're going to have to hire someone with a 6 figure salary to figure out how to do that. It's easy to forget how many things are involved in that. You're going to have a lot of databases, so you need a system to track them. A lot of these databases are presumably not big enough to warrant a full physical server, so you have to sort out multi-tenancy. If you have multi-tenancy, you need a way to handle RBAC so one user can't bork all the databases on the host. You will also need some way to handle what happens when one user is throwing so much load at the RDBMS it's impacting other apps on that database. To accomplish that, you're going to need a way to gather metrics that are sharded per-database and a way to monitor those (which is admittedly one of the easier bits). You also generally just straight up lose a lot of the scaling features. I don't have a way to just give you more IOPS to your database on-prem. The best I can do is add more disks, but your database will be down for a long time if I have to put a disk in, expand the RAID, let it redistribute data and then power it back up. That's several hours of downtime for you, along with anyone who's on the same database. Of course, we can do replicas, and swap the master, but everyone will have to reconfigure their apps or we need something like Consul to handle that (which means more engineers to manage that stuff). You're also probably going to need more than one of those expensive infra people, because they presumably need an on-call rotation, and no one is going to agree to be on-call the time. And every time someone quits, you have to train the new person, which is several months of salary basically wasted. That's not to say that you don't need infra people on AWS, but you a) need a lot less of them, because they only need to manage the systems AWS has, not build them, and b) you can hire cheaper ops people, again because you don't need people that are capable of building those kinds of systems. Once you factor in all of that stuff, AWS' prices start looking more reasonable. They're still a little higher, but they're not double the price. If anything more than a tiny, tiny subset of the AWS features are appealing, it's going to cost you almost as much to build your own as it does to just pay Amazon/Google/Microsoft/whoever. Also, a massive thing people overlook is that AWS is fairly well documented. I can Google exactly how to set up permissions on an S3 bucket, or how to use an S3 bucket as a website. It only takes seconds, the cognitive burden is low, and the low-friction doesn't cause anyone stress. In-house systems tend to be poorly documented, and doing anything slightly outside the norm becomes a "set up a meeting with the infra team" kind of thing. It takes forever, but more importantly, it takes a lot of thought and it's frustrating.
- f430 5y agodo you know if they let you host adult videos?
- gallexme 5y agoyeah sure if u have all the rights to host those videos in whole europe/germany its allowed https://www.hetzner.com/rechtliches/cloud-server/?country=de https://www.hetzner.com/rechtliches/cloud-server/?country=de i know a couple people have naughty stuff on it (like sex toy shops, sexual services, private for sale adult videos)
- f430 5y agohmmm why hetzner though? 100tb offers massive amount of bandwidth for tube sites I think. do you know if Amazon S3 allows adult content?