Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Where is the hosting industry going? - Page 3
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Where is the hosting industry going?

13»

Comments

  • @aj_potc said:

    @rick2610 said:
    You are more talking about outsourcing instead of a managed service. AWS offers well defined services as managed like SES or S3. The outsourcing model is not scaleable like AWS or Auzue cloud is doing.

    Possibly I am. But the subject of the thread was the future of hosting, and I see this type of fully managed service as a possible goal or next step. Rather than providing us with very well defined services or computing resources (building blocks), how about giving us a solution that puts those things together for us? They've already abstracted away things like storage and compute and database services, but can we bring that even further?

    Essentially, I'm wondering if semi-automated orchestration is around the corner.
    That might bring me to the AWS table.

    AWS offers lambda functions, API gateways and similar stuff, so "semi-automated orchestration" is not around the corner, but is already there ready to use. You just need to "cook", the cloud provider will serve your dinner ;-)

    Check for example here: https://aws.amazon.com/serverless/

    Other providers offer similar stuff, with varying names.

    I don't say that servers will be obsolete, this depends entirely on the use case, but cloud services (not as in server clouds) provide quite advanced alternatives.

  • It is not about replacing servers (VPS, dedicated) by other servers (EC2 instances), but about using things like lambda functions, which are fully managed.

    I am not sure if it is the best example, but see here for a large scale migration of a very well know organization:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/8673fe2a-e876-45fc-9a5f-203c049c9f9c

    Serverless is not the same thing as a fully managed. Fully managed costs way more.

  • @trycatchthis said:

    It is not about replacing servers (VPS, dedicated) by other servers (EC2 instances), but about using things like lambda functions, which are fully managed.

    I am not sure if it is the best example, but see here for a large scale migration of a very well know organization:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/8673fe2a-e876-45fc-9a5f-203c049c9f9c

    Serverless is not the same thing as a fully managed. Fully managed costs way more.

    It seems to me that you are still thinking about this from the perspective of servers. I guess there is still a whole new world to discover for you.

  • @MrRadic said:

    @hackerman said:
    I don't see pricing changing much at all. The E3-1270 v6 server I started renting 4 years ago is still the same price today.

    You just likely are just paying just enough to cover operating costs.

    True. According to my calculations, it takes about 3 years just to break even on the server for the provider... let's not go into electricity, cooling, maintenance, etc.

  • MrRadicMrRadic Patron Provider, Veteran

    @hackerman said:

    @MrRadic said:

    @hackerman said:
    I don't see pricing changing much at all. The E3-1270 v6 server I started renting 4 years ago is still the same price today.

    You just likely are just paying just enough to cover operating costs.

    True. According to my calculations, it takes about 3 years just to break even on the server for the provider... let's not go into electricity, cooling, maintenance, etc.

    Exactly, LET is the worst place to have these discussions as the client base is usually the ones the hosting company is making no money off of.

  • @MrRadic said:

    @hackerman said:

    @MrRadic said:

    @hackerman said:
    I don't see pricing changing much at all. The E3-1270 v6 server I started renting 4 years ago is still the same price today.

    You just likely are just paying just enough to cover operating costs.

    True. According to my calculations, it takes about 3 years just to break even on the server for the provider... let's not go into electricity, cooling, maintenance, etc.

    Exactly, LET is the worst place to have these discussions as the client base is usually the ones the hosting company is making no money off of.

    I buy non-sale servers regularly from a specific provider for my clients I came across here and even at those 'normal' prices it will take them 2yrs to break even on hardware costs. Tough.

  • The rising price of colocation and power will bring multi-core ARM to the party.

  • @MrRadic said:

    Exactly, LET is the worst place to have these discussions as the client base is usually the ones the hosting company is making no money off of.

    I'm not sure that's completely true. I am here because this is the most active and interesting place on the Web for hosting-related discussion and offers. That used to be WHT, but no more.

    While I certainly take advantage of some LET deals for my backup and redundancy needs, I (and the businesses I consult for) are definitely not looking only for "low end" services. For production hosting needs, I'm looking for good value, which is frequently higher than the LET price. I'm sure I'm not alone.

    In fact, I recall that in the past on one of your advertising offers here, someone complained about you listing links to servers on your site that were over the "LET price limit," whatever that was/is. I came to your defense, replying that your more expensive offers were relevant to me and that I was happy to learn about them. Of course rules are rules, and LET rules should be followed, but I think it's important for hosts like you to know that we aren't all looking just for $5/yr servers.

  • MrRadicMrRadic Patron Provider, Veteran

    @aj_potc said:

    @MrRadic said:

    Exactly, LET is the worst place to have these discussions as the client base is usually the ones the hosting company is making no money off of.

    I'm not sure that's completely true. I am here because this is the most active and interesting place on the Web for hosting-related discussion and offers. That used to be WHT, but no more.

    While I certainly take advantage of some LET deals for my backup and redundancy needs, I (and the businesses I consult for) are definitely not looking only for "low end" services. For production hosting needs, I'm looking for good value, which is frequently higher than the LET price. I'm sure I'm not alone.

    In fact, I recall that in the past on one of your advertising offers here, someone complained about you listing links to servers on your site that were over the "LET price limit," whatever that was/is. I came to your defense, replying that your more expensive offers were relevant to me and that I was happy to learn about them. Of course rules are rules, and LET rules should be followed, but I think it's important for hosts like you to know that we aren't all looking just for $5/yr servers.

    Thanks, I agree, but I specifically said usually. There are outliers, but the let crowd that reaches out to us is literally willing to do a full migration to save a buck. I don't blame them as it's the spirit of let, but I don't think it accurately represents the real hosting industry where people are spending hundreds for the same hardware that sells for one tenth the cost here.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @MrRadic said: literally willing to do a full migration to save a buck. I

    Ah, hostdoc...

    Francisco

    Thanked by 2seriesn lentro
Sign In or Register to comment.