3 ms·

If you don't need all the cloud stuff - Hetzner has also storage server i.e. SX134 with 10x16TB for 250€/month. For 50€/month you can order a 10Gbit upgrade and

by nisa 4y ago

If you don't need all the cloud stuff - Hetzner has also storage server i.e. SX134 with 10x16TB for 250€/month. For 50€/month you can order a 10Gbit upgrade and after 20TB free traffic it's 1€/TB egress. It's an ordner of magnitude cheaper. Of course that's because you are responsible for checking the disks, setting everything up and keeping it up to date - but at least for the problems we have where I work there is absolutely no need to use Google or any other cloud and Hetzner is more than good enough.

acdha 4y ago
You need to multiply those numbers by 3 to reflect that the cloud storage service has geographic redundancy, and you need a software stack which provides the same replication and bitrot protection, etc.
- simfree 4y ago
  Most use cases do not need triple redundancy with geographic redundancy. If you really do need this, just order this and use Wasabi as well ($6/TB, pricing below) and you will get all that along with having cross-provider redundancy. https://wasabi.com/cloud-storage-pricing/#three-info https://wasabi.com/cloud-storage-pricing/#three-info
  - acdha 4y ago
    I’m not saying that this is the only factor but most places do need redundancy and the cost of providing it is non-trivial. There’s still plenty of margin but you need a fair amount of storage to balance out the staff time you’d need to run that service on bare servers.
    - smartbit 4y ago
      > you need a fair amount of storage to balance out the staff time you’d need to run that service on bare servers. Do you have any proof of your statement? Eg. same type of org, one using Hetzner the other using one of the big three? Are the sizes of the DevOps team that different? And don’t forget to calculate the overhead on the big three from having to architect for the cost of egress. I know there is the sales fairy of being able to scale out quickly, does that really matter in both cases? And if really required, can’t it be done for the couple of hours/days on one of the big three? Not to forget that scale-out isn’t available in some regions, as we’ve seen discussed here recently.
      - remus 4y ago
        I'm not sure what counts as proof, but I think it's fair to point out that comparing a bare metal server to managed cloud storage is not like for like. For example, Google cloud storage offers automatic migration of cold data to tape, replication across regions allowing fast recovery in case of a failure, durability guarantees etc. If that's not something you need then you could definitely save yourself a lot of money, but if you need to build some of that stuff out (and then monitor it, improve perf, upgrade when new drives come out, be on call for down time etc.) Then the cost comparison becomes less clear.

by nisa 4y ago

acdha 4y ago

You need to multiply those numbers by 3 to reflect that the cloud storage service has geographic redundancy, and you need a software stack which provides the same replication and bitrot protection, etc.

simfree 4y ago
Most use cases do not need triple redundancy with geographic redundancy. If you really do need this, just order this and use Wasabi as well ($6/TB, pricing below) and you will get all that along with having cross-provider redundancy. https://wasabi.com/cloud-storage-pricing/#three-info https://wasabi.com/cloud-storage-pricing/#three-info
- acdha 4y ago
  I’m not saying that this is the only factor but most places do need redundancy and the cost of providing it is non-trivial. There’s still plenty of margin but you need a fair amount of storage to balance out the staff time you’d need to run that service on bare servers.
  - smartbit 4y ago
    > you need a fair amount of storage to balance out the staff time you’d need to run that service on bare servers. Do you have any proof of your statement? Eg. same type of org, one using Hetzner the other using one of the big three? Are the sizes of the DevOps team that different? And don’t forget to calculate the overhead on the big three from having to architect for the cost of egress. I know there is the sales fairy of being able to scale out quickly, does that really matter in both cases? And if really required, can’t it be done for the couple of hours/days on one of the big three? Not to forget that scale-out isn’t available in some regions, as we’ve seen discussed here recently.
    - remus 4y ago
      I'm not sure what counts as proof, but I think it's fair to point out that comparing a bare metal server to managed cloud storage is not like for like. For example, Google cloud storage offers automatic migration of cold data to tape, replication across regions allowing fast recovery in case of a failure, durability guarantees etc. If that's not something you need then you could definitely save yourself a lot of money, but if you need to build some of that stuff out (and then monitor it, improve perf, upgrade when new drives come out, be on call for down time etc.) Then the cost comparison becomes less clear.