3 ms·
For infrequent, unpredictable workloads using something like spot instances on AWS and scaling as needed (including to zero) will likely be cheaper. I think He
by pid-1 4y ago
For infrequent, unpredictable workloads using something like spot instances on AWS and scaling as needed (including to zero) will likely be cheaper.
I think Hetzner and other budget cloud providers are excellent choices for use cases that require always on, reasonably predictable workloads like webservers.
- vidarh 4y agoThe thing is they are so much cheaper, especially for egress, that it takes really extreme spikes or batch jobs for it to be cheaper to use AWS vs. leaving an excess number of server running permanently on somewhere like Hetzner. Very few sites have variable enough traffic that scaling up and down with usage saves enough to even get close. There certainly are genuine cases where AWS will come out ahead, but they're rare. E.g. if you suddenly need several hundred instances for on average a few days a month, it's probably worth it. Very few people do that, and paying for the capacity to be able to offer that is part of the reason for why AWS is so expensive. Peoples belief that AWS is cheap is another reason. Ironically, the ability to run a hybrid setup that scales up in AWS when you genuinely need rapid extra capacity changes the maths even further in favour of dedicated servers from places like Hetzner (as does the fact most places like Hetzner now have their own cloud offerings) because it means you can go closer to the wire on your dedicated servers.