Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by throw_m239339 1542 days ago
> Which may be much cheaper than $4/month if you have very low traffic numbers.

A big IF. My $4/month stay $4/month without the added complexity of "serverless" deployment nor every stupid constraints this business model imposes. If serverless actually didn't make money, this business model wouldn't exist or wouldn't be pushed, mainly by Amazon employees here.
1 comments
jjeaff 1542 days ago
It's php, so your architecture by nature is already serverless unless you are using some newer plugin like swoole.

For most projects, that $4 server is great and what I would prefer. But where serverless can excel is an application that has very spikey usage.

If your $4 server gets hit with spikes of usage that would require a $500 server for an hour once or twice a month, you might be better off with serverless, rather than paying $500/month to have a server that big all the time.

link
ipaddr 1542 days ago
The traffic costs of a $500 server vs the price of ondemand pricing for an hour or two would still be in favour of the $500 dollar server.
link
bliteben 1540 days ago
why are we even talking about a $500 php server, that is like the 0.01% of websites, You either need really specialized requirements or to be in the top 1,000 websites to need anything near what you can get for $500/month.
link
jjeaff 1538 days ago
That was an arbitrary number, but I don't think that is true. It doesn't take much functionality before you will start needing the power of a server in the $500 range. Many apps today do a lot more than serve up static requests. I run a php server with just a few thousand daily active users and we need a $250/mo server.

You have your app, and database, and then your logging, tracing, and tracking stack and It all starts adding up pretty quickly.

link