I’d like to thank the admins for being so open and direct about the issues that they’re facing.

  • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Habit (guess). Its what is used professionally, despite being proven over and over that cost-per-speed is terrible compared to less known providers.

    • virtualbriefcase@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      That, and like others mentioned their flexibility, plus the fact that they’re fairly reliable (maybe less than some good Iaas providers but a fair bit more than your consumer vps places). Moments ago I went to the hetzner site to check them out and got:

      Status Code 504 Gateway Timeout

      The upstream server failed to send a request in the time allowed by the server. If you are the Administrator of the Upstream, check your server logs for errors.

      Annoying if it’s you nextloud instance down for a minutes, but a worthy trade off if you’re paying 1/4 of the price. Extremely costly for big business or even risking peoples’s lives for a few different very important systems.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hetzner has four nines availability, usually higher. AWS claims five nines but chances are you’ll mess up something on your end and end up at three to two nines, anyway. If you really need five nines you should probably colocate and only use the likes of AWS as a spike backup.

        And I guess “messed something up on your end” happened in that case: I don’t think Hetzner is necessarily in the habit of maximising availability of their homepage at all cost (as opposed to the hosting infrastructure), you probably caught them in a middle of pushing a new version.

        …speaking of spike backups: That is what AWS is actually good for. Quickly spinning up stuff and shutting it down again before it eats all your money.

    • masterspace@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the average Web engineer’s salary capable of running a site like this is ~$180,000, then a $30,000 difference in cost is only about 2 months salary. Learning and dealing with a new hosting environment can easily exceed that.

        • masterspace@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe, maybe that hosting provider doesn’t exist in the long term, maybe that hosting provider crashes more often or makes sudden api changes and causes more ongoing work and headaches that chew up more time and salary, maybe you end up needing a more complex over the top service that they don’t offer and need to go to AWS / Azure anyways.

      • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        What’s that? Taxes? And no way do I agree with this. $30k is a lot, no matter how much you make. Learning a new environment is not THAT hard.

        • masterspace@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is, but learning a new environment, then dealing with any down the line troubleshooting or instability can easily add up to $30,000 if you actually track where salaried employees time is going.