For ~100eur/month on hertzner you can get a 16core Zen3, 128GB RAM with 8TB of NVMe SSD.
Unless your stack is horrendously badly optimised you can serve SO MUCH traffic off that - definitely billions of postgres records without breaking a sweat.
So the scale argument somewhat disappears - if anything, people end up adding much more complexity to the product to get round the high hardware costs of the cloud (complex caching systems for example, instead of just throwing loads of hardware at the problem).
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I do find myself often surprised to realize that for a younger generation of developers they have never experienced hosting on bare metal. So they have not been exposed to costs & benefits vs. the cloud approach and feel that no local machine could ever be as fast as AWS. Even though in reality even a pedestrian server is immensely faster and cheaper than any AWS offering.
Now, sure, there are tradeoffs in ease of scaling up and other considerations, but it's good to keep and eye on the actualy tradeoffs you're making and how much it's costing.
Not only can you end up spending $10k of engineering time to optimize and test a random, non-core-competency bit of code instead of an extra $1k/year on hardware, you also have to maintain the optimized code instead of the simpler code.
Maybe I just worked at companies that did a poor job of managing servers, or had a dysfunctional relationship between software engineering and operations, but at least that's no longer something I have to worry about in a cloud environment. If spending a little extra on hardware is the best solution to the problem, process/planning/politics won't get in the way.
That's true with owning your hardware, but what about renting from Hetzner/OVH/etc? You get servers set up in minutes unless you have a very specific request (the only time I've had lead time with these providers is when I had a very custom request, a machine with 300+ TB of storage - yes that is not a typo). Everything else has been delivered pretty much instantly.
But even if let's say you have a very specific use-case such as needing a 300TB server that would typically require lead-time, well in that case the prices are so cheap that you can just keep it around all the time sitting mostly unused and still come out ahead compared to cloud pricing.
Yes, that's the beauty of it and sometimes you need it.
OTOH, how often do you need to grow capacity without any lead time like that? If you are in a hyper-growth stage in a startup you absolutely need it and it is a lifesaver.
But, most companies never see a hyper-growth stage. Even those which do, it's a relatively short timeframe (you can't grow exponentially very long).
All the rest of the time it's a fairly large premium to pay just in case another hyper-growth period happens. Sometimes it's totally worth it. But good to review the likelyhood and cost tradeoffs every now and then.
We run most workloads on a 3.5GB/2 "vCPU" box. This costs around $70/month per instance. We actually haven't scaled this out past 8 instances, at a cost of $560/month (and that has been extremely rare).
On bare metal we could have ran it on a $100/month 16core/128GB box and always had that capacity in reserve. While app service gives a lot of benefits, the scalability argument is somewhat moot as basically you can provision all the capacity you would scale to 24/7 and still the same/less than cloud.
Maybe it's just the projects I've worked on, but I haven't really ever seen people require 100x or 1000x the capacity in a very short period of time (which obviously bare metal could not do). I've seen traffic grow that much - but generally over weeks, months or years.
It stopped to be the case in pandemic times at most cloud operators due to general hardware and capacity shortage.
What option is that? The closest I see is the CCX41, but that is 40% more expensive, 140 Eur/month, half the RAM (64 GB) and ~4% of the disk space (360 GB)
