3 ms·

> since we owned the hardware it meant that efficient utilization wasn't a requirement for us anymore This is a great point. Hyper focus on optimizing micro-co

> since we owned the hardware it meant that efficient utilization wasn't a requirement for us anymore This is a great point. Hyper focus on optimizing micro-containers is costly and sucks up a lot of time. You can still deploy like this in the cloud though. On AWS make a three-year reservation of a c6a.32xlarge to get 128 vCPU for $16k annually. Hetzner is cheaper, 80 vCPU for about €2,506 annually. [1] https://instances.vantage.sh/aws/ec2/c6a.32xlarge https://instances.vantage.sh/aws/ec2/c6a.32xlarge [2] https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/rx170 https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/rx170

cjalmeida 3y ago
This is the way. Unless you are huge, self hosting and even colo is not competitive with long term VM commitments in hyper scalers. They get big discounts on everything you'd pay retail, and their margins for barebones VM is not that large.
aetherspawn 3y ago
One of our 100 core boxes is Windows Server and it looks like they want $79,949 annually for it.
- aetherspawn 3y ago
  I wanted to add more info but couldn't edit. We bought that server for $12,000 with 5 year warranty, and got our Windows Server licenses out of an MS bundle which cost about $400. I think that brings the ROI after 5 years compared with AWS to something like 3200%, less energy, if nothing goes wrong. (I know that there are better options than running Windows Server on this box, but it seems to perform the same, it's far easier to administer by inexperienced devops, and in the long term it's actually around $1500/yr cheaper than running supported RHEL. Our other box is running supported RHEL but after testing Windows Server and having no issues we'll probably switch it for the cost savings).
riku_iki 3y ago
> On AWS make a three-year reservation of a c6a.32xlarge to get 128 vCPU for $16k annually. plus more expensive network for cloud

cjalmeida 3y ago

This is the way. Unless you are huge, self hosting and even colo is not competitive with long term VM commitments in hyper scalers. They get big discounts on everything you'd pay retail, and their margins for barebones VM is not that large.

aetherspawn 3y ago

One of our 100 core boxes is Windows Server and it looks like they want $79,949 annually for it.

aetherspawn 3y ago
I wanted to add more info but couldn't edit. We bought that server for $12,000 with 5 year warranty, and got our Windows Server licenses out of an MS bundle which cost about $400. I think that brings the ROI after 5 years compared with AWS to something like 3200%, less energy, if nothing goes wrong. (I know that there are better options than running Windows Server on this box, but it seems to perform the same, it's far easier to administer by inexperienced devops, and in the long term it's actually around $1500/yr cheaper than running supported RHEL. Our other box is running supported RHEL but after testing Windows Server and having no issues we'll probably switch it for the cost savings).

riku_iki 3y ago

> On AWS make a three-year reservation of a c6a.32xlarge to get 128 vCPU for $16k annually. plus more expensive network for cloud