Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by anteatersa 2462 days ago
I wonder if it's a generational thing but it seems to me that people nowadays have forgotten that you can host more than one site or database per server. Failing that shared hosting still offers amazing value if you don't need anything to weird e.g. someone like Bluehost or Hostgator offers unlimited* sites + databases for about $5/month
3 comments
mrfredward 2462 days ago
>you can host more than one site or database per server

I'm fully aware of this but never do it because I'm pretty much incompetent as a sysadmin. I don't want to be in a position where I can break an existing project while trying to configure something new I don't understand yet. Nor do I want to run security updates for a blog I setup 5 years ago.

I'm not 100% thrilled with going serverless because it makes debugging awful, but it has saved me money and it makes most things easier. If I went back to shared hosting, I'd just be paying for the privilege of getting to shoot myself in the foot.

link
Sohcahtoa82 2460 days ago
I have a t2.micro that runs several things:

- Mumble server for my wife's WoW guild (They don't use Discord because some of their peeps are running on really dated hardware that can barely handle WoW, let alone an Electron app running concurrently with WoW)

- Taiga.io task tracker

- Dev server for a web game I'm working on (If I ever decide the game is good enough to publish, obviously I'd run dev and prod servers on separate instances)

- IRC bouncer

- Pi-hole DNS for my phone

Containers? Don't need 'em. And each process requires next to no CPU time, so I always have nearly full CPU credits. RAM is enough unless I'm building the latest version of my IRC bouncer, but hitting the paging file for a few minutes is no big deal.

link
neuland 2462 days ago
I host a site on S3, CloudFront, and Lambda and I'm always looking at the billing to see when it's time to graduate to a normal server setup. It's not going to be a huge project to switch from the existing setup to a docker style setup on one server. So, I'm keeping the site on S3 until it becomes favorable to move it.

Since the organization only has the one site, there's not enough usage to warrant $5 a month for even a tiny a virtual server.

link