[jackdoe]

    > IOPS: 3,000
    > IOPS: 300,000 for 551$ per month

the cloud is ridiculous.

just for reference with 4 consumer nvmes and raid10 and pciex16 you can easily do 3m IOPS for one time cost of like 1000$

in my current job we constantly have to rethink db queries/design because of cloud IOPS, and of course not having control over RDS page cache and numa.

every time I am woken up at night because a seemingly normal query all of the sudden goes beyond our IOPS budget and the WAL starts trashing, I seriously question my choices.

the whole cloud situation is just ridiculous.

[jaza]

You don't pay for RDS because you care about IOPS. You pay for it because you want backups and replication to be somebody else's problem. And because you (by which I mean probably the MBA management above you, rather than you yourself) care about it being an opex rather than capex cost, a lot more than you care about how much the cost is. And because ISO audit boxes get ticked.

[thyristan]

If you want your own hardware to be OPEX, just do leasing. Every enterprise hardware seller will make you an offer for that.

[benjiro]

> You pay for it because you want backups and replication to be somebody else's problem.

Or you just use something like CockroachDB, YugabyteDB etc that auto replicate, auto rebalance if a node goes down, and have build in support for backups to and from S3...

Or if your a bit more hands on, multigress seems to be closing to completion ( https://github.com/multigres/multigres ) from the guy that make Vitess for Mysql.

The idea that managing hardware and software is hard, is silly yet, people (mostly managers it seems ) think its the best solution.

[manacit]

I wouldn't say it's closing to completion - it looks like it's in the very early stages development according to their repo. I don't see any evidence they've gotten as far as even running a single query through it.

Even when it's done, it's going to be a lot of work to run. sure, it's not guaranteed to be hard, but if it's not your core business and you're making money, having someone else do it gives you time to focus on what matters.

[makkes]

Comparing monthly cloud cost with one-time hardware purchasing cost completely dismisses the latter's long-time cost like people, replacement parts, power, housing, accessories. While I do believe you can run your own hardware much cheaper, there's a lot to consider before making the decision.

[Hrun0]

But now you need someone to deal with the hardware.

[jackdoe]

oh no! this is proven to be impossible, no man can tell a computer what to do

lspci is only written in the old alchemy books, in the whispers of the thrice great Hermes.

PS: I have personally put down actual fires in a datacenter, and I prefer it to this 3000 IOPS crap.

[layoric]

Working at IT places in the late 2000s, it was still pretty common place for there to be a server rooms. Even for a large org with multiple sites 100s of kms a part, you could manage it with a pretty small team. And it is a lot easier to build resilient applications now than it was back then from what I remember.

Cloud costs are getting large enough that I know I’ve got one foot out the door and a long term plan to move back to having our own servers and spend the money we save on people. I can only see cloud getting even more expensive, not less.

[hylaride]

There is currently a bit of an early shift back to physical infra. Some of this is driven by costs(1), some by geopolitical concerns, and some by performance. However, dealing with physical equipment does introduce a different set (old fashioned, but somewhat atrophied) set of skills and costs that companies need to deal with.

(1) It is shocking how much of a move to the cloud was driven by accountants wanting opex instead of capex, but are now concerned with actual cashflow and are thinking of going back. The cloud is really good at serving web content and storing gobs of data, but once you start wanting to crunch numbers or move that data, it gets expensive fast.

[unregistereddev]

In some orgs the move to the cloud was driven by accountants. In my org it was driven by lawyers. With GDPR on the horizon and murmurs of other data privacy laws that might (but didn't) require data to be stored in that customer's jurisdiction, we needed to host in additional regions.

We had a couple rather large datacenters, but both were in the US. The only infrastructure we had in the EU was one small server closet. We had no hosting capacity in Brazil, China, etc. Multi-region availability drove us to the cloud - just not in the "high availability" sense of the term.

[mbesto]

> I can only see cloud getting even more expensive, not less.

When you have three major hyperscalers competing for your dollars this is basically not true and not how markets work...unless they start colluding on prices.

We've already seen reduction in prices of web services costs across the three major providers due to this competitive nature.

[ralusek]

And it’ll be so good and cheap that you’ll figure “hell, I could sell our excess compute resources for a fraction of AWS.” And then I’ll buy them, you’ll be the new cloud. And then more people will, and eventually this server infrastructure business will dwarf your actual business. And then some person in 10 years will complain about your IOPS pricing, and start their own server room.

[lossolo]

You don't need to, just rent dedicated servers, still 20-50x cheaper, problem solved.

[vbezhenar]

Most clouds I've used allow you to create VM with local disk, and that might be cheaper that network disk.

[jackdoe]

This is the 500$ per month option they are describing in the post, the magnificent 300,000 IOPS, the network disk is 1500$ for 16000 IOPS

not to mention then you have all the issues people are discussing managing your own backups, snapshots and replication and etc