[Nextgrid]

One thing unaccounted for if you've only ever used cloud-hosted DBs is just how slow they are compared to a modern server with NVME storage.

This leads the developers to do all kinds of workarounds and reach for more cloud services (and then integrating them and - often poorly - ensuring consistency across them) because the cloud hosted DB is not able to handle the load.

On bare-metal, you can go a very long way with just throwing everything at Postgres and calling it a day.

[andersmurphy]

100% this directly connected nvme is a massive win. Often several orders of magnitude.

You can take it even further in some context if you use sqlite.

I think one of the craziest ideas of the cloud decade was to move storage away from compute. It's even worse with things like AWS lambda or vercel.

Now vercel et al are charging you extra to have your data next to your compute. We're basically back to VMs at 100-1000x the cost.

[NewJazz]

Yeah our cloud DBs all have abysmal performance and high recurring cost even compared to metal we didn't even buy for hosting DBs.

[briHass]

This is the reason I manage SQL Server on a VM in Azure instead of their PaaS offering. The fully managed SQL has terrible performance unless you drop many thousands a month. The VM I built is closer to 700 a month.

Running on IaaS also gives you more scalability knobs to tweak: SSD Iops and b/w, multiple drives for logs/partitions, memory optimized VMs, and there's a lot of low level settings that aren't accessible in managed SQL. Licensing costs are also horrible with managed SQL Server, where it seems like you pay the Enterprise level, but running it yourself offers lower cost editions like Standard or Web.