3 ms·
What’s funny is I’ve seen several HN posts disown hyperscale cloud providers and encourage others to use OVH based simply on cost, without any analysis of what
by throwoutway 4y ago
What’s funny is I’ve seen several HN posts disown hyperscale cloud providers and encourage others to use OVH based simply on cost, without any analysis of what they lose in the process
Another poster pointed out that the data center had wooden ceilings! That’s insane!
- sascha_sl 4y agoWhat most of these posts also say is that you need a good strategy for handling catastrophic failure of single data centers. Even if you deploy your workload 3x redundant with offsite backups, you're likely still paying less than on the 3 big clouds in traffic alone.
- throwoutway 4y agoI’ve never seen a single OVH fan say that in their recommendation here
- sascha_sl 4y agoI have (about Hetzner)
- dx034 4y agoIf your server goes down it doesn't matter if it's because of a faulty host or because of a dc fire. You need redundancy either way. People affected by this fire had likely all assets in one data center, which I also wouldn't recommend with AWS & Co.
- sofixa 4y agoIt's slightly different, because AWS have AZs. Each region is composed of at least 3 AZs, each one being at least a datacenter, at a distance from one another, but the region is usable as a single entity. An OVH DC is separate, but can be next to other DCs in an area ( e.g. the Strasbourg DCs were all next to each other) which is OK because they don't sell any AZ or regional features.