12 ms·

This is precisely why I stick to dedicated servers for my own personal projects. $40/month for a machine, doesn't get any more predictable than this.

by matsz 2y ago

baobabKoodaa 2y ago
If you rent a dedicated server from AWS, you will be hit for various additional fees which will likely dwarf that $40/month. So the issue here is not really shared vs dedicated instances. The issue here is that a particular cloud provider (namely AWS) has set up an opaque fee structure.
- drdaeman 2y ago
  > If you rent a dedicated server from AWS Who, in their right mind, goes for a bare metal to AWS, when there are so many decent and time-tested options out there?
  - jedberg 2y ago
    Data Gravity. If you already have all your data in AWS, and your app that is generating new data is in AWS, it makes a lot of sense to get bare metal in AWS to do batch workloads on that data, so there is no egress fees.
    - benterix 2y ago
      We did a calculation in my previous company and it turned out even with the egregious egress costs it was way cheaper to host these huge workloads outside of AWS.
  - smabie 2y ago
    crypto hft
  - mywittyname 2y ago
    Anyone who has experience with AWS or is looking to hire candidates with known skills. AWS is the industry standard. A lot of quality candidates know it and use it, because it pays the best and has the most job opportunities. And most companies use it because they were first to market and its easy to find candidates. I'd argue that startups should have a good reason for not using AWS. The costs for their basic services is not that much compared to the cost of development.
- ElevenLathe 2y ago
  In my experience, when people say "dedicated server" they typically mean something like OVH rather than a real "cloud" provider (AWS, GCP, Azure, etc.). In other words, something morally equivalent to colo but without having to ship servers around.
  - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
    Yes, that is likely the case here as well. But if someone is not well versed in cloud providers and reads these comments, they might be misinformed without clarifying that this issue is AWS vs other providers, as opposed to dedicated vs shared resources.
- matsz 2y ago
  Oh no, I would never go AWS for dedicated. Should've specified that in my comment so people don't get disappointed if they try to get that from AWS.
- oooyay 2y ago
  I suspect they're not getting a dedicated server from Amazon. Anyone doing that is either foolish or is so locked into AWS infrastructure that it cost-wise makes more sense than to expand a network to another provider. Fun times, indeed. What I started doing is just running my own "cloud" out of my house for personal projects. I have all of the things I need. There's some overhead in terms of maintenance and up-front setup cost in terms of time and equipment, but after that it's pretty smooth sailing.
  - whiplash451 2y ago
    You still have network performance limitations + the security aspects to run by yourself (as in: not getting your data drive encrypted by a ransomware)
    - oooyay 2y ago
      I probably wasn't explicit enough with "cloud" but I mean running your own isolated workloads with at minimum virtual machines and virtual isolated storage (block or otherwise). From a topological perspective my home DC resembles most major clouds other than the fact that there are not two sites.
  - yolovoe 2y ago
    > I suspect they're not getting a dedicated server from Amazon. If it's literally called a dedicated server, why would you suspect otherwise? Source: I worked in the core EC2 dataplane for a couple years. PEs and leadership there would not be happy with misleading customers. We constantly thought of the customer experience there.
    - oooyay 2y ago
      Generally you get a "dedicated host" from AWS, not a "dedicated server" so that was kind of my first tip off. There's a very big difference; the only usecase I'd really consider for dedicated hosts is security related and, frankly, they're far more expensive than any colo box. Dedicated Hosts are also far more restrictive than what you get at a colo DC. Second, even if AWS offered to let you have full control of a rack box you'd have to be economically out of your mind with AWS' network costs compared to a colo DC.
- whiplash451 2y ago
  You can get much cheaper dedicated servers with alternative providers such as OVH.
zeroxfe 2y ago
There's no way you're getting a machine for $40/month. :-) Did you mean a dedicated VM or VPS? (I have a bunch of actual dedicated machines with different providers, and this would save me a lot of money.) (Edit: holy moly those prices are fantastic!)
- distantsounds 2y ago
  OVH and Hetzner have offerings at that price range. you can use a tool like serverhunter.com to find all sorts of economically-priced servers.
  - matsz 2y ago
    Yep, I'm renting two servers from Hetzner; have one in Germany and another in Finland. Both cheap (€40/month) and over the few years I've been using their services, I have nothing to complain about.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - Scarbutt 2y ago
    Does OVH asks for passport verification too, like Hetzner?
    - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
      Why would they ask for a passport? Many people don't even have one.
      - Scarbutt 2y ago
        The worst part is they ask for it after you have enter your credit card details. Maybe they have policies per geographic region for this.
- javchz 2y ago

This is precisely why I stick to dedicated servers for my own personal projects. $40/month for a machine, doesn't get any more predictable than this.

by matsz 2y ago

This is precisely why I stick to dedicated servers for my own personal projects. $40/month for a machine, doesn't get any more predictable than this.

baobabKoodaa 2y ago

If you rent a dedicated server from AWS, you will be hit for various additional fees which will likely dwarf that $40/month. So the issue here is not really shared vs dedicated instances. The issue here is that a particular cloud provider (namely AWS) has set up an opaque fee structure.

drdaeman 2y ago
> If you rent a dedicated server from AWS Who, in their right mind, goes for a bare metal to AWS, when there are so many decent and time-tested options out there?
- jedberg 2y ago
  Data Gravity. If you already have all your data in AWS, and your app that is generating new data is in AWS, it makes a lot of sense to get bare metal in AWS to do batch workloads on that data, so there is no egress fees.
  - benterix 2y ago
    We did a calculation in my previous company and it turned out even with the egregious egress costs it was way cheaper to host these huge workloads outside of AWS.
- smabie 2y ago
  crypto hft
- mywittyname 2y ago
  Anyone who has experience with AWS or is looking to hire candidates with known skills. AWS is the industry standard. A lot of quality candidates know it and use it, because it pays the best and has the most job opportunities. And most companies use it because they were first to market and its easy to find candidates. I'd argue that startups should have a good reason for not using AWS. The costs for their basic services is not that much compared to the cost of development.
ElevenLathe 2y ago
In my experience, when people say "dedicated server" they typically mean something like OVH rather than a real "cloud" provider (AWS, GCP, Azure, etc.). In other words, something morally equivalent to colo but without having to ship servers around.
- baobabKoodaa 2y ago
  Yes, that is likely the case here as well. But if someone is not well versed in cloud providers and reads these comments, they might be misinformed without clarifying that this issue is AWS vs other providers, as opposed to dedicated vs shared resources.
matsz 2y ago
Oh no, I would never go AWS for dedicated. Should've specified that in my comment so people don't get disappointed if they try to get that from AWS.
oooyay 2y ago
I suspect they're not getting a dedicated server from Amazon. Anyone doing that is either foolish or is so locked into AWS infrastructure that it cost-wise makes more sense than to expand a network to another provider. Fun times, indeed. What I started doing is just running my own "cloud" out of my house for personal projects. I have all of the things I need. There's some overhead in terms of maintenance and up-front setup cost in terms of time and equipment, but after that it's pretty smooth sailing.
- whiplash451 2y ago
  You still have network performance limitations + the security aspects to run by yourself (as in: not getting your data drive encrypted by a ransomware)
  - oooyay 2y ago
    I probably wasn't explicit enough with "cloud" but I mean running your own isolated workloads with at minimum virtual machines and virtual isolated storage (block or otherwise). From a topological perspective my home DC resembles most major clouds other than the fact that there are not two sites.
- yolovoe 2y ago
  > I suspect they're not getting a dedicated server from Amazon. If it's literally called a dedicated server, why would you suspect otherwise? Source: I worked in the core EC2 dataplane for a couple years. PEs and leadership there would not be happy with misleading customers. We constantly thought of the customer experience there.
  - oooyay 2y ago
    Generally you get a "dedicated host" from AWS, not a "dedicated server" so that was kind of my first tip off. There's a very big difference; the only usecase I'd really consider for dedicated hosts is security related and, frankly, they're far more expensive than any colo box. Dedicated Hosts are also far more restrictive than what you get at a colo DC. Second, even if AWS offered to let you have full control of a rack box you'd have to be economically out of your mind with AWS' network costs compared to a colo DC.
whiplash451 2y ago
You can get much cheaper dedicated servers with alternative providers such as OVH.

zeroxfe 2y ago

There's no way you're getting a machine for $40/month. :-) Did you mean a dedicated VM or VPS? (I have a bunch of actual dedicated machines with different providers, and this would save me a lot of money.) (Edit: holy moly those prices are fantastic!)

distantsounds 2y ago
OVH and Hetzner have offerings at that price range. you can use a tool like serverhunter.com to find all sorts of economically-priced servers.
- matsz 2y ago
  Yep, I'm renting two servers from Hetzner; have one in Germany and another in Finland. Both cheap (€40/month) and over the few years I've been using their services, I have nothing to complain about.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Scarbutt 2y ago
  Does OVH asks for passport verification too, like Hetzner?
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    Why would they ask for a passport? Many people don't even have one.
    - Scarbutt 2y ago
      The worst part is they ask for it after you have enter your credit card details. Maybe they have policies per geographic region for this.
javchz 2y ago