• Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    9 hours ago

    At the scale of one of the top websites by daily active users, owning your own infrastructure is absolutely cheaper than just throwing it on AWS. At a more realistic smaller scale where you might exceed the bandwidth available for your own hardware, there’s also the option of a hybrid setup where your content is mainly hosted on hardware that you control and then it automatically scales out to AWS or similar when demand spikes.

    There’s really tons of ways to make web apps and server infrastructure cheaper than just renting it from a cloud provider, but many orgs lack the vision and drive to do so and just fork money over to [insert hyperscaler here] and watch their app go down when that hyperscaler goes down. I really question this mentality especially when the same organization has constant discussions about not liking how large their cloud provider bills are

    • Mniot@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      One could argue that reduced maintenance costs are a value from the cloud providers. E.g. when my AWS VM dies I can get a new one back in <10m (faster with automation). When my self-hosted server dies I need to have planned for that with a warm spare and someone needs to physically be connecting new hardware. AWS allows you to pay more but have a predictable constant cost.

      But I think that you’re right that it’s lack of vision. Everyone’s following the VC-backed company path, where it doesn’t make sense to save money for next year because we’ll be selling some entirely new company then.