• TheDude@sh.itjust.worksM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If I were to do some rough math I’d say it would cost about $300/CAD per month.

    My goal is once we are approved to start accepting donations that I can purchase dedicated hardware for this instance. I’d get a used server at about $2300 which would be sufficient a good amount of extra users and through it into its own dedicated shared colo at about $100/month. Factor in about $300-400 a year for drive replacements and we are left with $2300 / 12 month= 191.66 + 100/month for the shared 1u colo + a budget of $400 for drive failures throughout the year $33/month. 191.66 + 100 + 33 = $324.66/month for the first year dropping to about $133 per month after the first 12 months. It’s worth noting that this method would give us double the amount of resources and quite a bit of extra storage.

    Ideally we don’t keep this instance on a single server forever and start to think about spreading it over multiple hosts at or after around 100K users (or less if the number of active users is high).

    If someone wanted to host an instance they would not need to allocate as much resources as I have to this instance and depending on how active the instance gets could run off something a lot less powerful.

    • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.worksM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I love the transparency. I think we can easily reach that mark. Whenever you get approved for donations we’ll be ready. I’ve got at least tree fiddy in my account

      • Thelsim@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I agree. Thanks for keeping us updated and explaining what kind of money needs to be spend.
        I’ll be more than happy to chip in.
        edited because Thelsim doesn’t know how to proofread

        • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Drive replacement != backup

          Drive replacement = maintenance, a subset of physical security.

          Backup = logical security.

          The purpose of backup is to prevent loss of data in general, not only on account of drive failure, but also other sources such as malicious activity

    • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is exactly what I was after thanks for the good rundown! Also thanks for all the time money and effort spent on all of this

    • comfortablyglum@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thank you for the money and time you put into making this instance work and keeping it working. I imagine the responsibility that comes from all this is both a joy and a burden.

    • ScrawnyStork@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I really appreciate the information, it’s very interesting to me. Given that you have a fairly specific price in mind for a server, what kind of hardware are you thinking of?

    • CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Have you considered the implications of hardware failure on uptime? And where the cost to maintain a physical hardware will come from? What about scaling requirements?

      I’m not a network engineer, but I’ve been involved in the corporate argument of Cloud vs On-Prem. hosting for years now. The costs always come out better for Cloud when factoring in other indirect costs like facilities and labor.

      Granted it’s always been on the scale of hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, and I haven’t run the numbers on smaller requirements. I just wouldn’t want to expose additional points of failure in return for slightly lower monthly costs.

      • Wats0ns@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the cost always come out better for cloud for a given reliability level. But this is a volunteer run thing, so we won’t mind if there is some more important downtime than on reddit or Twitter. I really do think that if your objective is not reaching 100% uptime but cost reduction, then on prem really becomes the cheapest option

        • CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A very good point! We don’t need constant uptime. But I worry about the hidden costs of On-Prem, and worst case scenario where TheDude is on vacation somewhere and the instance crashes, it could be down for a while. It’s also not a worry I would want to force on them either.

          • Wats0ns@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, when I try to explain this to people, I always explain the bus factor concept: how many people could get hit by a bus until it becomes critical to run your business ! Running in the cloud allows you to avoid this problem, there will always be an oncall tech in the DC of your cloud provider, which is very hard to organize for an on prem system !

            I guess The dudes can always give remote access to someone he trusts, but at the end of the day if a disk fail somebody got to go switch it