logoalt Hacker News

JSR_FDEDyesterday at 2:03 PM7 repliesview on HN

> Cloud providers are expensive for steady-state workloads.

Asking the obvious question: why not your own server in a colo?


Replies

preinheimeryesterday at 2:27 PM

We used to run some servers in a colo, we had 4u.

The problem with actually owning hardware is that you need a lot of it, and need to be prepared to manage things like upgrading firmware. You need to keep on top of the advisories for your network card, the power unit, the enterprise management card, etc. etc. If something goes wrong someone might need to drive in and plug in a keyboard.

Eventually we admitted to ourselves we didn't want those problems.

show 2 replies
klodolphyesterday at 2:14 PM

“Your own server in a colo” means going to the colo to swap RAM or an SSD when something goes wrong. You rent a server and the benefit is the rentor has spare parts on hand and staff to swap parts out.

show 2 replies
perbuyesterday at 2:12 PM

You have to deal with a lot more stuff. You have to order/pay for a server (capex), mount it somewhere, wire up lights-out-mgmt and recovery and do a few more tasks that the provider has already done.

Then, say if the motherboard gives up, you have to do quite a bit of work to get it replaced, you might be down for hours or maybe days.

For a single server I don't think it makes sense. For 8 servers, maybe. Depends on the opportunity cost.

show 1 reply
traceroute66yesterday at 2:17 PM

> why not your own server in a colo?

Have you seen what the LLM crowd have done to server prices ?

vb-8448yesterday at 2:07 PM

I Guess hetzner is basically "your server in colo"

subscribedyesterday at 3:32 PM

It's also expensive (redundant server hardware, xconnect, power, firewall(s), PSU access, smart hands, sysadmin).

But it's indeed cheaper with high, sustained workloads.

PunchyHamsteryesterday at 4:07 PM

Bit of waste of time for a server. Only makes sense if you actually need at least half a rack