Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mschuster91 408 days ago
> The question seems to be when Stack Overflow will wind down operations, or the owner sells the site for comparative pennies, not if it will happen.

I see the latter option, but the former? SO, at least judging by their hardware posts, was running on nine servers two years ago [1]. That's barely anything in costs - electricity, uplink and occasional rotation of the hardware, but probably a single person working a decent job can afford to run the entire hardware for the site.

Truly shows how far a tight budget can go when you don't waste untold amounts of money and energy on layers upon layers of complexity.

> I'm sure we'll see spaces where developers hang out and help each other continue to be popular – whether they are in the form of Discord servers, WhatsApp or Telegram groups, or something else.

Yeah fuuuuck that. It's so annoying that everyone and their dog moved to these walled gardens. Google can't pierce them, unlike IRC of ye olde days where it was common to let a bouncer publish logs, WA/Telegram come with privacy risks and Discord is a hellscape.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34950843

1 comments

Hardware is usually just a small part of running a website.
Set up StackOverflow according to "cloud native" recommendations and whoops, that's gonna be quite the bill, which is my point. You'll have Cloudfront for global load balancing, ELB to provide a bridge between Cloudfront and Kubernetes, EFS for storage, RDS for the database, EKS and EC2 for compute, ElastiCache for KV cache, add in CodeBuild for build/deploy pipelines... AWS has quite the hefty overhead.
Oh definitely. AWS is where you go to set money on fire.

However servers aren't the sort of thing you can just plugin and forget when running a major website. Things go down, users trigger edge cases, people try and DOS you, disks fill up, etc. You do still need some staff to take care of things