3 ms·

Cloud kool-aid drinkers say "The cloud is always better" I say that in many cases your own server is better. My company runs its own on-prem confluence, it's b

Cloud kool-aid drinkers say "The cloud is always better" I say that in many cases your own server is better. My company runs its own on-prem confluence, it's been taken down for updates on a regular basis at a known maintenence time. That's far better than losing it because a cloud based one was hosted on GCP this morning when we actually need the data Obviously in many other cases the cloud is better. You wouldn't want to server a million cusotmers across the world from a single server in your own basement. That's not the only model.

mekkkkkk 5y ago
I agree completely with that added nuance. Cloud infra is definitely overused and is sometimes seen as the only option these days, even for the simplest of projects. Having your own metal is often times much more convenient and cheaper. Plus it's much more enjoyable to work with. My only gripe was with your gross over-simplification that read like "hurr durr, my server hasn't gone down this year, so self-hosting has better uptime than Google". It's such an unnecessary and baseless argument.
- iso1210 5y ago
  Vast vast majority of arguments you hear on HN is that it's impossible to run your own equipment. That's as ridiculous as saying you could run dropbox off a raspberry pi, but tends to get pushed to the top, and the schadenfreude when these events inevitability come along is too good to miss. Every few months another major outage of another cloud provider hits the headlines, meanwhile millions of small companies have no problem with the uptime of their 'legacy' services. I was at a farm a few weeks ago, the farmer had a server in a closet. It did break on occasion, when there was a power outage. His desktop and internet broke too, so what would the point in his server working. If it was hosted on google it wouldn't have been working this morning, despite his computer being fine. If you build your business processes around accepting failure, it's not a problem. It's far easier to keep at least one out of 3 machines online for 99.999% of the time than to keep a single service running for the same time.

mekkkkkk 5y ago

I agree completely with that added nuance. Cloud infra is definitely overused and is sometimes seen as the only option these days, even for the simplest of projects. Having your own metal is often times much more convenient and cheaper. Plus it's much more enjoyable to work with. My only gripe was with your gross over-simplification that read like "hurr durr, my server hasn't gone down this year, so self-hosting has better uptime than Google". It's such an unnecessary and baseless argument.

iso1210 5y ago
Vast vast majority of arguments you hear on HN is that it's impossible to run your own equipment. That's as ridiculous as saying you could run dropbox off a raspberry pi, but tends to get pushed to the top, and the schadenfreude when these events inevitability come along is too good to miss. Every few months another major outage of another cloud provider hits the headlines, meanwhile millions of small companies have no problem with the uptime of their 'legacy' services. I was at a farm a few weeks ago, the farmer had a server in a closet. It did break on occasion, when there was a power outage. His desktop and internet broke too, so what would the point in his server working. If it was hosted on google it wouldn't have been working this morning, despite his computer being fine. If you build your business processes around accepting failure, it's not a problem. It's far easier to keep at least one out of 3 machines online for 99.999% of the time than to keep a single service running for the same time.