Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jmngomes 4512 days ago
I don't think "bang for the buck" comparisons are the main issue here.

The main advantage of going for AWS (especially) or other cloud provider is flexibility: you shrink and grow your server farms whenever you need to, with little setup/maintenance costs.

So, cost savings come, mainly, from not paying for idle/underused hardware. At scale, these can make it cheaper to go cloud rather than self-hosted.
1 comments
kayoone 4512 days ago
Sounds nice in theory, but how often do you actually need to do that? More often than not, you are still overpaying on AWS vs a simple leased server. Look at what you get for a mere 50 bucks/month http://www.hetzner.de/en/hosting/produkte_rootserver/ex40

Add 10 to that and you have dual SSDs, no long term contracts and provisioning of new machines within the same day, mostly <2 hours.

link
jmngomes 4511 days ago
> "More often than not, you are still overpaying on AWS vs a simple leased server"

Sorry, didn't explain myself properly: that's exactly my point. Unless you have enough scale to enjoy the benefits of on-demand shrink/grow, you're better off with offers like the one you posted or even other cloud providers like DO.

A good thing about AWS is that it ended up forcing down prices for leased servers.

link