6 ms·

You are 100% correct but you’d be shocked at the mortal terror that “self hosting” inflicts in the minds of even people who should really know better. Also for

by api 2mo ago

You are 100% correct but you’d be shocked at the mortal terror that “self hosting” inflicts in the minds of even people who should really know better. Also forget Dell. Check out DataPacket.com and other metal hosters. You don’t need to physically rack unless you are huge or have special hardware or security needs. The cloud industry has done an incredible job at a kind of soft pervasive propaganda that running stuff is “hard.”

antonvs 2mo ago
You’re expressing a very narrow engineer’s perspective that doesn’t consider the realities of managing bare metal hosting at any kind of scale. These are business decisions, made in terms of core competencies, capex vs. opex, and the difficulties and cost of building out a reliable, sustainable hosting operation that handles all the compliance and security requirements, and the full range of “ilities” that real businesses have to deal with. The fact that Bob in IT might be capable of doing some of this on his own doesn’t really enter into the picture. It’s not relevant. There’s a reason that most companies don’t operate their own electricity generation systems. Much the same is true for computing systems.
- icedchai 2mo ago
  There are also many shades of gray between "big cloud" AWS/Azure/GCP and "my own rack" bare metal hosting.
  - calvinmorrison 2mo ago
    Right like learning AWS is significantly harder than buying a big server and maintaining it
    - rincebrain 2mo ago
      Many people who have ever had to deal with the long tail of insanities in physical hosting, like "the ceiling burst and dumped water on a rack", "the RAID controller's capacitors exploded and now you need to figure out what still works", or "for some reason three of the servers won't talk to this switch but talk to anything else using the same cables, and the switch ports work for other devices", would happily pay a premium to only deal with SaaS logistics. (Those were all firsthand examples; I'm not saying everyone needs cloud providers, but there are reasons beyond "really good salespeople" that people opt for offloading those logistics.)
      - calvinmorrison 2mo ago
        I've dealt with both. I am continually amazed that people not only pay for AWS, but that it is so complicated, and that they use it in all sorts of absurd ways, not even just hosting 'vms' but using all sorts of amazon tools to do trivial tasks. I am sorry I just dont get it. Is it like learning salesforce and once you're sucked in you're just in? I am so glad I do not work at an AWS shop anymore and am very glad to be in a position where we do not use it.
        fulafel 2mo ago
        You get AWS certifications, use as many AWS services as possible to pad your CV with the service experience and certifications, get your arguments and "well architected" dogma from AWS sales. Then you can get paid more at the next company (or at least high salary offers to extract a raise). Also building high complexity systems that require a big expensive cloud engineer staff gets you status and visibility. In a tight spot you can still blame AWS for problems. (Reality is not quite so bleak as people are not completely cynical)
        icedchai 2mo ago
        Having worked on some systems where the previous developers drank the AWS kool-aid, this rings true.
        dilyevsky 2mo ago
        I actually do get public cloud as well as running your own racks. There is room for both. Your startup is growing 100% every quarter but you're not sure if you have real PMF yet? Yeah probably stick with cloud. Zombiecorn growing 10-20% yoy or not growing and you're paying the cloud $10M/y for 6yo CPUs? - pretty foolish to continue doing that.
      - late2part 2mo ago
        or things like "Datacenter bombed by Iran..."
      - ericd 2mo ago
    - icedchai 2mo ago
      I probably wouldn't start with buying a big server if I was just starting out. I would consider renting one from Hetzner, OVH, or many others. There are also many other alternatives. Example: VPS providers like Vultr which have expanded to offer more traditional "cloud" features like object storage, load balancers, managed DBs, etc. Their pricing is way more competitive than AWS, especially when you consider bandwidth.
      - vachina 2mo ago
        Then buy a small server first. You don’t need a “big” server when you’re just starting out.
        icedchai 2mo ago
        Personally, I'd rent a small server first. About 20 years ago I had a small web hosting operation with my own racked servers. It's a pain to deal with when something goes wrong. Eventually we transitioned to renting dedicated servers.
  - antonvs 2mo ago
    Agreed, it’s why I said “at any kind of scale”. There’s a sort of arguable sweet spot where someone motivated and knowledgeable can manage their own hardware, even if it’s just rented from Hetzner etc. But that just doesn’t scale. Once you do try to scale that - not just the hardware but the staffing that’s needed to avoid a bus factor of 1, to ensure the required uptime especially if it needs to be 24x7, to handle disaster recovery, failover, security and compliance issues etc. etc., you quickly run into all the reasons that infrastructure management services and other computing services - i.e., cloud - have won out so definitively. If you’re small enough that none of those things matter very much to you, and knowledgeable enough to run your whole system yourself, and have the time and inclination to deal with it, go for it! But such people are outliers who are really indulging a hobby more than anything else. It generally makes extremely little business sense.
- __d 2mo ago
  You’re forgetting blame: if an on-prem system has an issue, that’s 100% on you. If AWS/GCP/Azure has an outage, that’s just bad luck, and everyone else suffers too.
  - sgarland 2mo ago
    Until someone gets the bright idea that you should be multi-region.
- nixon_why69 2mo ago
  Most corporations past a certain point have in-house counsel because it would be ruinous to pay Big Law for every little thing. That's not a narrow legal perspective, it's one look at a very obvious balance sheet. The same could go for hosting.
  - shye 2mo ago
    Your legal department does not replace your retained lawyers, they add to it. It’s separate roles.
    - nixon_why69 2mo ago
      Sure, just like CDN or rarely-used excess capacity could be separate roles to the bulk of your compute. If you're racking up 750/hr putting big law on routine corporate tasks then you are probably messing up. Hire an admin.
    - elzbardico 2mo ago
      Your legal department usually doesn't do litigation. This is contracted to external offices.
- elzbardico 2mo ago
  Frankly. Most of that stuff is corporate bullshit. Compliance is 99% fucking theatre, cover your ass audits with a fancy check list. The capex vs opex theatre is just stupid economics and bad generalization from wall street types. Almost nothing of it is really real. And your analogy may impress other glorified salesman, but it doesn't hold water for a second, electricity is fungible, computing is not, electricity is stateless, you computing infrastructure carries your data. Power consumption generally is not a competitive differentiator,computing often is. And of course, the economics IN THE FUCKING REAL WORLD is broken: It is very hard to compete with the prices of the grid, not so in the modern cloud world where hyperscalers captured market enough to feel free to start extracting monopolistic rent from their consumers. And even the premise is uninformed, heavy industry frequently resorts to co-generation, and now, ironically, even data centers projects are exploring it.
- dilyevsky 2mo ago
  the capex vs opex arugment would be persuasive if you couldn't lease servers. and obviously colo was always opex. basically the only time you'd get into serious capex was when you were building your own datacenters
jmward01 2mo ago
It is worth the exercise to honestly assess the maintenance, initial costs, ongoing costs, etc etc for owning your own. I did this at a company for a single server to let the ml group test fine tuning frameworks/throw crazy ideas at before spending real money on a training run and it paid for itself in like 3 months. Sometimes the math is overwhelmingly positive, sometimes it isn't. In general, the smaller/earlier you are the less it makes sense. Not because of the per hour costs, but because of the distraction away from implementing the core idea of the company. It is worth some, maybe a lot of, inefficiency to stay focused. When you get bigger and have strong fit and a clear direction it is a lot easier to focus on optimizing hosting costs and spending leadership time away from the core problem of the company.
- api 2mo ago
  It’s always a spreadsheet decision. Seems like people missed the end of what I wrote though. We run some bare metal but do not physically handle it. There’s many companies who will rent huge boxes with good connectivity in a data center. DataPacket is the best we have found for price and reliability. Physically racking only makes sense if you are huge or have special requirements.
  - esseph 2mo ago
    > Physically racking only makes sense if you are huge or have special requirements. CISA has identified 16 US industries where they have noted that companies should be able to operate indefinitely without internet access. See the Water Plant hack stories coming through right now across more than 19 states, for example. Water, electricity, internet access / telecom, military, chemical, logistics, transportation, etc.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
pdntspa 2mo ago
Oh man I cannot tell you how many times I've gotten into arguments on here and other technical forums years ago about self-hosting and how 'stupid' I was to not want to rent cloud servers

by api 2mo ago

antonvs 2mo ago

You’re expressing a very narrow engineer’s perspective that doesn’t consider the realities of managing bare metal hosting at any kind of scale. These are business decisions, made in terms of core competencies, capex vs. opex, and the difficulties and cost of building out a reliable, sustainable hosting operation that handles all the compliance and security requirements, and the full range of “ilities” that real businesses have to deal with. The fact that Bob in IT might be capable of doing some of this on his own doesn’t really enter into the picture. It’s not relevant. There’s a reason that most companies don’t operate their own electricity generation systems. Much the same is true for computing systems.

icedchai 2mo ago
There are also many shades of gray between "big cloud" AWS/Azure/GCP and "my own rack" bare metal hosting.
- calvinmorrison 2mo ago
  Right like learning AWS is significantly harder than buying a big server and maintaining it
  - rincebrain 2mo ago
    Many people who have ever had to deal with the long tail of insanities in physical hosting, like "the ceiling burst and dumped water on a rack", "the RAID controller's capacitors exploded and now you need to figure out what still works", or "for some reason three of the servers won't talk to this switch but talk to anything else using the same cables, and the switch ports work for other devices", would happily pay a premium to only deal with SaaS logistics. (Those were all firsthand examples; I'm not saying everyone needs cloud providers, but there are reasons beyond "really good salespeople" that people opt for offloading those logistics.)
    - calvinmorrison 2mo ago
      I've dealt with both. I am continually amazed that people not only pay for AWS, but that it is so complicated, and that they use it in all sorts of absurd ways, not even just hosting 'vms' but using all sorts of amazon tools to do trivial tasks. I am sorry I just dont get it. Is it like learning salesforce and once you're sucked in you're just in? I am so glad I do not work at an AWS shop anymore and am very glad to be in a position where we do not use it.
      - fulafel 2mo ago
        You get AWS certifications, use as many AWS services as possible to pad your CV with the service experience and certifications, get your arguments and "well architected" dogma from AWS sales. Then you can get paid more at the next company (or at least high salary offers to extract a raise). Also building high complexity systems that require a big expensive cloud engineer staff gets you status and visibility. In a tight spot you can still blame AWS for problems. (Reality is not quite so bleak as people are not completely cynical)
        icedchai 2mo ago
        Having worked on some systems where the previous developers drank the AWS kool-aid, this rings true.
      - dilyevsky 2mo ago
        I actually do get public cloud as well as running your own racks. There is room for both. Your startup is growing 100% every quarter but you're not sure if you have real PMF yet? Yeah probably stick with cloud. Zombiecorn growing 10-20% yoy or not growing and you're paying the cloud $10M/y for 6yo CPUs? - pretty foolish to continue doing that.
    - late2part 2mo ago
      or things like "Datacenter bombed by Iran..."
    - ericd 2mo ago
  - icedchai 2mo ago
    I probably wouldn't start with buying a big server if I was just starting out. I would consider renting one from Hetzner, OVH, or many others. There are also many other alternatives. Example: VPS providers like Vultr which have expanded to offer more traditional "cloud" features like object storage, load balancers, managed DBs, etc. Their pricing is way more competitive than AWS, especially when you consider bandwidth.
    - vachina 2mo ago
      Then buy a small server first. You don’t need a “big” server when you’re just starting out.
      - icedchai 2mo ago
        Personally, I'd rent a small server first. About 20 years ago I had a small web hosting operation with my own racked servers. It's a pain to deal with when something goes wrong. Eventually we transitioned to renting dedicated servers.
- antonvs 2mo ago
  Agreed, it’s why I said “at any kind of scale”. There’s a sort of arguable sweet spot where someone motivated and knowledgeable can manage their own hardware, even if it’s just rented from Hetzner etc. But that just doesn’t scale. Once you do try to scale that - not just the hardware but the staffing that’s needed to avoid a bus factor of 1, to ensure the required uptime especially if it needs to be 24x7, to handle disaster recovery, failover, security and compliance issues etc. etc., you quickly run into all the reasons that infrastructure management services and other computing services - i.e., cloud - have won out so definitively. If you’re small enough that none of those things matter very much to you, and knowledgeable enough to run your whole system yourself, and have the time and inclination to deal with it, go for it! But such people are outliers who are really indulging a hobby more than anything else. It generally makes extremely little business sense.
__d 2mo ago
You’re forgetting blame: if an on-prem system has an issue, that’s 100% on you. If AWS/GCP/Azure has an outage, that’s just bad luck, and everyone else suffers too.
- sgarland 2mo ago
  Until someone gets the bright idea that you should be multi-region.
nixon_why69 2mo ago
Most corporations past a certain point have in-house counsel because it would be ruinous to pay Big Law for every little thing. That's not a narrow legal perspective, it's one look at a very obvious balance sheet. The same could go for hosting.
- shye 2mo ago
  Your legal department does not replace your retained lawyers, they add to it. It’s separate roles.
  - nixon_why69 2mo ago
    Sure, just like CDN or rarely-used excess capacity could be separate roles to the bulk of your compute. If you're racking up 750/hr putting big law on routine corporate tasks then you are probably messing up. Hire an admin.
  - elzbardico 2mo ago
    Your legal department usually doesn't do litigation. This is contracted to external offices.
elzbardico 2mo ago
Frankly. Most of that stuff is corporate bullshit. Compliance is 99% fucking theatre, cover your ass audits with a fancy check list. The capex vs opex theatre is just stupid economics and bad generalization from wall street types. Almost nothing of it is really real. And your analogy may impress other glorified salesman, but it doesn't hold water for a second, electricity is fungible, computing is not, electricity is stateless, you computing infrastructure carries your data. Power consumption generally is not a competitive differentiator,computing often is. And of course, the economics IN THE FUCKING REAL WORLD is broken: It is very hard to compete with the prices of the grid, not so in the modern cloud world where hyperscalers captured market enough to feel free to start extracting monopolistic rent from their consumers. And even the premise is uninformed, heavy industry frequently resorts to co-generation, and now, ironically, even data centers projects are exploring it.
dilyevsky 2mo ago
the capex vs opex arugment would be persuasive if you couldn't lease servers. and obviously colo was always opex. basically the only time you'd get into serious capex was when you were building your own datacenters

jmward01 2mo ago

It is worth the exercise to honestly assess the maintenance, initial costs, ongoing costs, etc etc for owning your own. I did this at a company for a single server to let the ml group test fine tuning frameworks/throw crazy ideas at before spending real money on a training run and it paid for itself in like 3 months. Sometimes the math is overwhelmingly positive, sometimes it isn't. In general, the smaller/earlier you are the less it makes sense. Not because of the per hour costs, but because of the distraction away from implementing the core idea of the company. It is worth some, maybe a lot of, inefficiency to stay focused. When you get bigger and have strong fit and a clear direction it is a lot easier to focus on optimizing hosting costs and spending leadership time away from the core problem of the company.

api 2mo ago
It’s always a spreadsheet decision. Seems like people missed the end of what I wrote though. We run some bare metal but do not physically handle it. There’s many companies who will rent huge boxes with good connectivity in a data center. DataPacket is the best we have found for price and reliability. Physically racking only makes sense if you are huge or have special requirements.
- esseph 2mo ago
  > Physically racking only makes sense if you are huge or have special requirements. CISA has identified 16 US industries where they have noted that companies should be able to operate indefinitely without internet access. See the Water Plant hack stories coming through right now across more than 19 states, for example. Water, electricity, internet access / telecom, military, chemical, logistics, transportation, etc.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]

pdntspa 2mo ago

Oh man I cannot tell you how many times I've gotten into arguments on here and other technical forums years ago about self-hosting and how 'stupid' I was to not want to rent cloud servers