3 ms·
You don't need your database on a dedicated server. Not sure why the comparison table claims "$30 + DB server" when your web server is a perfectly good server a
by LoganDark 7d ago
You don't need your database on a dedicated server. Not sure why the comparison table claims "$30 + DB server" when your web server is a perfectly good server already.
- iinnPP 7d agoPresumably to remove it from the need to calculate. Everyone is using a different approach and one DB may require a lot more than the 30$ server can provide. Now everyone can understand the math.
- LoganDark 7d agoThe claim is presumably that a web server running SQLite is that much better than a web server running Postgres or Redis. So they end up including it in the calculation anyway but only on one side... so it's just simply not even apples to apples.
- conductr 7d agoWhy do you need a dedicated server at all? A $7 droplet/vps would handle the full stack
- LoganDark 7d agoI meant a server dedicated to the database, but yes, I agree. Never said the web server had to be bare metal. I wonder if the misconception is from relying on managed database services. Maybe instead of installing their own database, they order one from a service provider like AWS or GCP. That would explain how they'd think that a database like Postgres would have to live on a different machine.
- EGreg 6d agoThe goal is to optimize everything other than the database. The vast majority of PHP apps are I/O bound and this webserver lets you handle 100x as many users as php-fpm. That’s the point. Your code can remain the same and keep using whatever database.