Absolutely.
Never understood why people are so infatuated with "cloud" options. Yes, it is convinient, but you are absolutely paying at least order of magnitude more for the same amount of compute/storage.
Never understood why people are so infatuated with "cloud" options. Yes, it is convinient, but you are absolutely paying at least order of magnitude more for the same amount of compute/storage.
A datacenter makes sense if your usage profile is steady state and hardly ever changes, or if growth rate is predictable and capacity can be procured in advance. Any other use case is better suited for the cloud, IMO.
And it costs like 1/5th of cost of “cloud”, and the later still gets you “the cloud”.
Now you’re in the business of maintaining/patching/imaging/securing your operating system and all of the libraries/builtins it comes with...along with your app's stack.
That's not nearly as simple as "Hey, here's my code, Lightsail; ship it and present me its URL. Thanks!"
While cloud overcharges for McD product, I know what I get.
That wouldn't happen if the internal bureaucracy for firing the laggards wasn't so excruciatingly slow.
On AWS reserved instances with 8x A100s or H100s (if you can even get them) cost more per year than the total upfront retail price of the equivalent pods from Lambda Labs. The on-demand price is even more absurd.
that looks like some marketing material without any specifics..
Once you have the bandwidth at your location and you don't need to be present in multiple locations, it's cheaper to self-host.
Next step would be colocation, but for a start, using cloud offerings is a cheap way to be a part of the internet.
You can get "baremetal"/dedicated servers from places like Hetzner and OVH that give unmetered gigabit connections for like $50.
Additionally, if you are actually pushing close to that much traffic, you can negotiate guaranteed commit prices w/ AWS that are competitive (especially when you consider the quality of bandwidth. I can only get ~100 mb/s to my hetzner server because of how bad their peering is. I can easily saturate my 1GB connection to anywhere in AWS.)
---
(Having said that, this does only apply to egress via cloudfront. Things like charging for intra A-Z bandwidth within the same region is insane, and for many workloads may be surprisingly expensive.)
looks like your information is obsolete by 5 years: https://www.hetzner.com/news/traffic-limit
Their actual docs: https://docs.hetzner.com/robot/general/traffic/
And reports of throttling once you actually hit certain limits: https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/180504/hetzner-traffic-use...
Other offerings (e.g. 20gb/s uplink) and small cloud servers have traffic limitations.
But more importantly, the second link I posted shows how that despite being "unlimited" - it's not uncommon for hetzner to throttle / close your account if you go over unstated traffic limits.
No, you clearly stated that 1gb/s servers have 20tb cap, but no such products have such limitation, no links say anything like that.
It makes total sense to cap 20gb/s, because such unlimited bandwidth is clearly too much.
> But more importantly, the second link I posted shows how that despite being "unlimited" - it's not uncommon for hetzner to throttle / close your account if you go over unstated traffic limits.
you can argue that, though they didn't close or throttle account, they sent warning, and cap was 12 times higher than what you previously stated.