3 ms·

> To be honest most of you will be fine running a single dedicated bare-metal server Someone that says this has never even reflected about availability require

by mongol 2y ago

> To be honest most of you will be fine running a single dedicated bare-metal server Someone that says this has never even reflected about availability requirements.

bastawhiz 2y ago
It's 100% uptime as long as you never have to reboot!
- lakomen 2y ago
  And even if you have to reboot, how long does it take? A minute? How much does that minute downtime cost? It can cost a lot and for that case you have HA. Not rocket science tbh
  - bastawhiz 2y ago
    > And even if you have to reboot, how long does it take? A minute? How much does that minute downtime cost? It can cost a lot and for that case you have HA. HA shouldn't mean "we deploy a few times a day which drops our uptime to three minutes so we have to spend a lot". One redundant server and a load balancer is hardly HA and increases costs by tens of dollars a month. And frankly, a minute of downtime is the optimistic case. It all goes to hell when you have a failed software deploy that needs to be rolled back. Or when the application server has a bug that causes crashes and needs to restart every few hours. A single-server setup is only useful for companies where the technology matters far less than the service being provided. If you can tolerate an uptime of only 2-3 nines, great, but that's absolutely not reasonable for companies where the technology is the service. It's not rocket science that paying customers are going to be pissed if your site is unreliable.
dijit 2y ago
I could write a novel in response to this. Top comment reflects on how "getting to market fast" is the most important thing, much more important than costs. I agree. Second comment reflects on reliability. Reliability is only a concern when you actually have a product that people want to use. Cold hard truth: If you are trying to get to market as fast as possible, most of the cloud abstractions are going to slow you down in most situations. It can be worth it, but your MVP should be as fast to develop as possible and there's nothing faster than writing code and running it. Second, the reliability of a single machine is much more than you think. Until recently AWS didn't even cover their own reliability of a single instance, if they needed to boot you off a node and shut down your EC2 instance: you might get a bit of notice. Ironically, you don't even need five-nines in most cases, and if you do, cloud only gives you a toolbox to get there, it's not going to get you there without serious human investment. You will get 2-3 nines of availability with a bog standard PHP+MYSQL on a single machine. You know how I know? Because we all did this 15 years ago and truthfully: servers and operating systems are significantly more robust now than they were then, so it's only gotten better for those who do things "wrong".
lta 2y ago
You will have down times no matter what. I've been surprised quite a free times about how well (in term of availability) a simple one with just a few nodes can perform. Cloud is a scam in multiple dimensions: - It's overpriced most of the time (I'm looking at you aws) - It wastes you're brain cycle about their stupid proprietary stuff instead of focusing on real problems - Makes you dependent on their bullshit - There's probably more to add to the list. Overall, I'm a strong believer of "Refrain from doing cloud) :)

by mongol 2y ago

> To be honest most of you will be fine running a single dedicated bare-metal server Someone that says this has never even reflected about availability requirements.

bastawhiz 2y ago

It's 100% uptime as long as you never have to reboot!

lakomen 2y ago
And even if you have to reboot, how long does it take? A minute? How much does that minute downtime cost? It can cost a lot and for that case you have HA. Not rocket science tbh
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  > And even if you have to reboot, how long does it take? A minute? How much does that minute downtime cost? It can cost a lot and for that case you have HA. HA shouldn't mean "we deploy a few times a day which drops our uptime to three minutes so we have to spend a lot". One redundant server and a load balancer is hardly HA and increases costs by tens of dollars a month. And frankly, a minute of downtime is the optimistic case. It all goes to hell when you have a failed software deploy that needs to be rolled back. Or when the application server has a bug that causes crashes and needs to restart every few hours. A single-server setup is only useful for companies where the technology matters far less than the service being provided. If you can tolerate an uptime of only 2-3 nines, great, but that's absolutely not reasonable for companies where the technology is the service. It's not rocket science that paying customers are going to be pissed if your site is unreliable.

dijit 2y ago

I could write a novel in response to this. Top comment reflects on how "getting to market fast" is the most important thing, much more important than costs. I agree. Second comment reflects on reliability. Reliability is only a concern when you actually have a product that people want to use. Cold hard truth: If you are trying to get to market as fast as possible, most of the cloud abstractions are going to slow you down in most situations. It can be worth it, but your MVP should be as fast to develop as possible and there's nothing faster than writing code and running it. Second, the reliability of a single machine is much more than you think. Until recently AWS didn't even cover their own reliability of a single instance, if they needed to boot you off a node and shut down your EC2 instance: you might get a bit of notice. Ironically, you don't even need five-nines in most cases, and if you do, cloud only gives you a toolbox to get there, it's not going to get you there without serious human investment. You will get 2-3 nines of availability with a bog standard PHP+MYSQL on a single machine. You know how I know? Because we all did this 15 years ago and truthfully: servers and operating systems are significantly more robust now than they were then, so it's only gotten better for those who do things "wrong".

lta 2y ago

You will have down times no matter what. I've been surprised quite a free times about how well (in term of availability) a simple one with just a few nodes can perform. Cloud is a scam in multiple dimensions: - It's overpriced most of the time (I'm looking at you aws) - It wastes you're brain cycle about their stupid proprietary stuff instead of focusing on real problems - Makes you dependent on their bullshit - There's probably more to add to the list. Overall, I'm a strong believer of "Refrain from doing cloud) :)