4 ms·

Hmm, don't think that applies all the time. Herznet is way cheaper than AWS, and in most cases, I don't know why companies won't use it instead of AWS. The onl

Hmm, don't think that applies all the time. Herznet is way cheaper than AWS, and in most cases, I don't know why companies won't use it instead of AWS. The only reason people use it from what I know is that helps them with the next job, because everyone is using AWS. Kinda feels like ms and oracle in the 90's.

mschuster91 4y ago
There are more factors than "nobody got fired for buying IBM" regarding AWS/Azure/GCE: - the Big Three have data centers all over the world. No other provider can match that. (Obviously: if 99% of your customers come from the EU, Hetzner, OVH and friends will be cheaper) - there is a ton of prior experience in managing and provisioning infrastructure on the Big Three. You got Terraform providers covering every oh so tiny resource they have, and for literally every problem you got dozens upon dozens of stackoverflow/serverfault posts. - the Big Three have allll sorts of managed services. No matter if you need cheap blob hosting, virtual servers, bare metal servers without paying setup fees, AI training servers, VPNs, global load balancing/caching, data storage/archival, databases, "serverless" hosting, email, SMS, IoT communication, Active Directory and other identity/authentication/authorization solutions, business data analytics, whatever - it's all a one-stop-shop. No dozens of vendors, bills, payment schedules, GDPR processing agreements, budget issues - one vendor, one bureaucracy, everything you need. It's really bad that the EU never woke up to the rise of the Big Three and say, for example, financed the development of OpenStack to the tune that it could be used by domestic providers, because now the Big Three have all but eliminated the smaller competition.
- drewr 4y ago
  If all you want is bare metal on the most interconnected backbone, try Equinix https://deploy.equinix.com/metal/ https://deploy.equinix.com/metal/. We're not as cheap as Hetzner or OVH, but we're just as global as public cloud and will match or beat the latency.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    Heh fascinating. I thought you guys were purely colo hosters, my employer has a ton of rackspace at one of your DCs.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jonfromsf 4y ago
Herzner is way cheaper. But it doesn't have a database service or an S3 analog. Both of those are needed if you want to avoid spending a lot of money on operations staff.
justinclift 4y ago
Hetzner's dedicated servers have a limit of 10 firewall rules for their (hardware based) equivalent of AWS Security Groups. And some of those rules already have mandatory entries, so you'll likely only have around 7-8 actually usable. "Just use the firewall in your OS" is a workaround, but doesn't fully cover the same scenario's. That's why AWS has Security Groups after all. This limitation means we have to use smaller sized servers (64/128GB ram), rather than bigger ones which would otherwise be more cost effective. It's a real pita for us, and Hetzner have shown no interest in ever addressing the problem. :( That being said, it's all still a lot cheaper than AWS, as Hetzner doesn't charge for bandwidth with their dedicated servers. :)

mschuster91 4y ago

There are more factors than "nobody got fired for buying IBM" regarding AWS/Azure/GCE: - the Big Three have data centers all over the world. No other provider can match that. (Obviously: if 99% of your customers come from the EU, Hetzner, OVH and friends will be cheaper) - there is a ton of prior experience in managing and provisioning infrastructure on the Big Three. You got Terraform providers covering every oh so tiny resource they have, and for literally every problem you got dozens upon dozens of stackoverflow/serverfault posts. - the Big Three have allll sorts of managed services. No matter if you need cheap blob hosting, virtual servers, bare metal servers without paying setup fees, AI training servers, VPNs, global load balancing/caching, data storage/archival, databases, "serverless" hosting, email, SMS, IoT communication, Active Directory and other identity/authentication/authorization solutions, business data analytics, whatever - it's all a one-stop-shop. No dozens of vendors, bills, payment schedules, GDPR processing agreements, budget issues - one vendor, one bureaucracy, everything you need. It's really bad that the EU never woke up to the rise of the Big Three and say, for example, financed the development of OpenStack to the tune that it could be used by domestic providers, because now the Big Three have all but eliminated the smaller competition.

drewr 4y ago
If all you want is bare metal on the most interconnected backbone, try Equinix https://deploy.equinix.com/metal/ https://deploy.equinix.com/metal/. We're not as cheap as Hetzner or OVH, but we're just as global as public cloud and will match or beat the latency.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  Heh fascinating. I thought you guys were purely colo hosters, my employer has a ton of rackspace at one of your DCs.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jonfromsf 4y ago

Herzner is way cheaper. But it doesn't have a database service or an S3 analog. Both of those are needed if you want to avoid spending a lot of money on operations staff.

justinclift 4y ago

Hetzner's dedicated servers have a limit of 10 firewall rules for their (hardware based) equivalent of AWS Security Groups. And some of those rules already have mandatory entries, so you'll likely only have around 7-8 actually usable. "Just use the firewall in your OS" is a workaround, but doesn't fully cover the same scenario's. That's why AWS has Security Groups after all. This limitation means we have to use smaller sized servers (64/128GB ram), rather than bigger ones which would otherwise be more cost effective. It's a real pita for us, and Hetzner have shown no interest in ever addressing the problem. :( That being said, it's all still a lot cheaper than AWS, as Hetzner doesn't charge for bandwidth with their dedicated servers. :)