I moved two servers, one from Linode and the other from DO to Hetzner a few months ago, with similar savings. The best part was that the two servers had tens of different sites running, implemented in different languages, with obsolete libraries, MySQL and Redis instances. A total mess. Well: Claude Code migrated it all, sometimes rewriting parts when the libraries where no longer available. Today complex migrations are much simpler to perform, which, I believe, will increase the mobility across providers a lot.
The problem is a lot of this glue is proprietary by design at the various cloud services. I realize there are open source and alternative abstractions for a lot of of the same services, but there’s still quite a bit of glue if you’re on AWS, for example, and looking to move to bare metal.
But maybe I’m just thinking of the current capabilities of agents, and if we fast forward a couple years, even removing these abstractions or migrating will be very low friction.
But you can run most of the glue on your own dedicated instances.
I run k8s on a bunch of dedicated servers that are super cheap and I have all bells and whistles - just tell your coding agent to do it. You can literally design the thing you would never do yourself and it works brilliantly.
Postgres running on dedicated hardware replicated and with wal backups - easy just tell codebuff (my harness of choice) to do it. Then any number of firewalls, load balancers, bastion servers, etc. if you can imagine it , codebuff will implement it.
Yeah, at the last job there was a single outdated external wiki server left sitting in DO for those kinds of reasons while everything updated and internal had moved already (if not twice). If it hadn't become such a security risk it would never have been moved.
I have just seen with my own eyes Claude astroturfing on a gamedev subreddit from a botting account that was picked up by Google so I could see a few of their other comments. This account's operation was going on development subs complaining about how good Claude's latest model is and how awful it is being afraid of losing one's job to AI.
I know your comment is tongue-in-cheek and the poster here is kinda known, but this kind of astroturfing is a new low and it's everywhere on forums such as these.
I see a lot of these posts on Reddit, too, but I don't think it's actually Anthropic or Claude doing it. It's the same old Reddit karma farmers picking up on the latest trends. They've always combined headlines with ragebait to build karma and now LLM bots make it easier than ever.
It's too bad Reddit allows accounts to hide their comment history now. That was an easy way to identify bot accounts before they started allowing accounts to hide their post history
The whole internet is like this now, and it's only just getting started. Makes me sick tbh, and I am still questioning if this is the kind of industry I want to work in.
For those who remember Digg, the recently relaunched a new version and shut it down almost immediately. They were getting hammered with AI bots when it was realized the Digg apparently still has good SEO. The explain it right on homepage.
I've been warning people of Anthropic's astroturfing for a while now. The amount of "Insert latest model/Claude Code is scary. I'm worried about my job" posts, followed by a doom ridden writing about how their job was automated and 30 dudes got fired and the person is pivoting into plumbing or something or working at Mcdonalds, is just too suspicious not to note. Sometimes it's more covert. They don't mention any provider/model. Sometimes there's a subtle insert somewhere in the body, Opus, Claude, etc.
I was really confused, then, realized the person you’re replying to misspelled “ad” as "add", and you’re moving forward with the premises GP is an ad, and this HN submission is an ad. Then, you share you saw a Reddit account on a gamedev subreddit complaining AI is too good, & they're worried they won’t have a job, and you believe that Reddit account must have been an ad for AI.
It's not necessarily astroturfing. There is a seismic shift under way regarding how things get done in this business, and if you don't acknowledge it, that's weird in itself.
I've certainly noticed a seismic shift in how bad support and updates have gotten with some 3rd party vendors we use, and the answer they come back with is always that they're experimenting with AI. Not saying AI isn't part of the job now, but it is getting seriously over hyped and over extended.
It's absolutely not seismic. If you've used AI for a little bit, you'll realize it's good at writing boilerplate code. Any complex logic, and you better re-read and correct the code a few times until you trust it.
Of course if all you do is "host wordpress website" (like 80% of what's "webdev" do), it will work. Now the issue is that the last 20% are the hardest to cover, and current AI methods will not get there (you need some much more complex methods, like being able to integrate logic with learning-based ML, to do this)
It would seem that way for sure, if it was just a random anon posting it, but the person you're replying to is the creator of Redis so I feel it's more likely a genuine opinion/experience rather than a Claude ad...
I mean if it were anyone else, yeah I might agree, but I think Salvatore is being genuine here (and have seen Claude do a similarly surprising job fixing ops issues).
I don't think so. I think he's clearly abusing language (saying "Claude Code migrated the stufff", rather than "I migrated the stuff after using Claude to help write boilerplate, then I went on double-checking it, testing it, and then running it")
I don't think you've nailed it either. He SHOULD be saying "54 days ago, I powered on my computer and opened a terminal. From my editor I reviewed my code files and realized I had quite a mess on my hands. Realizing it was the year A.D. 2026, I decided to fire up a modern tool. I typed "claude" into my terminal. As it launched I told it I wanted helping taking my running programs and moving them from the virtual private servers I was running in Linode (inc) and Digital Ocean (co) to Hetzner (LLC). As Claude used it's tool use abilities it read the files and made suggestions on how to do the migrations, it indicated that it could go ahead and copy the files and run the needed commands but I would need to give it permission first. I granted it permission. Once it said the services were running, I instructed it to test that they were accessible and reliable while I reviewed the glowing new code it had written. In summary, with the help of Claude Code I was able to redeploy 37 services in Hetzner."
I think the parent has a point. For how many other accomplishments is the tool framed as the responsible party? We don't say "cranes built the skyscraper", people did. Why do we shift accountability when it comes to AI?
On Monday a crane company announces it’s pivoting to AI, followed by a quick 600% boost to its stock price. I wouldn’t even be surprised at this point.
Excuse my ignorance, but how is that migration (especially of older libraries that are apparently being rewritten) not just a copy/paste action from one server to the other? When I build software to deploy it it includes everything it requires library wise. At least the few things I've deployed so far.
You have to copy data across, and confirm that everything worked correctly, and if you're being fancy about it you need to freeze writes to the old server while you are migrating and then unfreeze after you've directed traffic to the new server. It's not trivial.
Sometimes you need library version X, which uses a compiled binary for the platform, which requires C library version Y, which requires glibc version Z, which is deprecated on the current version of the OS, etc etc etc.
Or you can update the app to remove the dependency on the library.
But honestly, this is what containers or VMs are built for in the first place.
Linode is going to lose my business in the next couple months as well. Been there over a decade, have referred countless customers to them, but they’ve kept bumping up prices over and over and I can get a dedicated server at Hetzner or other places with 8x the memory, dedicated NVMe disks, dedicated CPU for cheaper.
Sure you lose a little of the benefit of a “virtual” server which can be migrated but Hetzner’s support has always been super fast and capable, should I wind up in a situation where I’ve got downtime.
I too, am bravely using Claude for more DevOps. I run all of my virtual machines on proxmox atop bare metal servers I own and I’m just blown away at how quickly Claude can optimize and set up entire new networks across all of these machines. Truly feels like a coworker or well paid sysadmin.
Sure, and then you realize it deleted the db to "simplify the migration" lol
Obviously I agree that AI can be useful to write boilerplate, but it's in no way something you should use blindly when trying to do a migration or anything touching prod
So, to be more precise: no, "Claude Code didn't migrate it all". Claude Code helped you write boilerplate so that you could migrate
Now imagine you can do that with a local model. You're basically breaking lockin on _Every_ end. Simply beautiful. A digital guillotine for the digital elite!
I’m formulating plans to switch from AWS to Hetzner. Amazon gets you by charging high prices (sometimes 20x more than competitors) and forcing you to make long-term commitments in order to get the prices to somewhere more reasonable. Then they make it exorbitantly expensive to migrate your data anywhere else. It’s a very customer-hostile approach that I’m tired of at this point.
Amazon might think that they’re locking people in with the egress fees. But they’re also locking people out. As soon as you switch one part to a competitor, the high egress forces you to switch over everything.
It’s going to be complicated to switch, but it’s made easier by the fact that I didn’t fall into the trap of building my platform on Amazon-specific services.
I'm not trying to convince you to stay (I work for neither anymore!), just wanted to note that you can technically request a waiver. I'm not sure how this works in practice though. Like, if you want to leave Athena and move to something on-premise is that enough to have just that workload? Maybe!
Edit: I also didn't follow this at the time, but the AWS wording suggests that the "EU Data Act" is also involved.
This doesn't actually work as advertised. I attempted free data egress from AWS in December. It took them 31 days to respond to my initial ticket. At which point they gave me a multi-page questionnaire to determine eligibility and they also told me I could not begin DTO until 60 days had passed from approval of the questionnaire.
By the time I was allowed "free egress" my cumulative S3 storage charges over the prior 100 days would have roughly matched the cost of egress if I just did so originally.
I'm in the US so the EU Data Act protections don't apply.
Have you tried to use the DTO? I did. They make you fill in a form saying you'll migrate all services (despite the blog post saying that isn't necessary), and then they take up to 12 weeks to make a decision. In my case they rejected it on a formality after 2 weeks and said to try again (the timer starts again).
So in my case that would have been 14 weeks plus the time to migrate away. The egress costs are equivalent to around 17 weeks storage cost. So you save around 1c/gb if they don't find some reason to reject it.
I have been using hetzer for a few years now. I realized I just need a Linux VM and snapshots. It is so freeing to not have to deal with big tech's VMs and their cumbersome and soul-sucking steps and documentation.
Every time I see this kind of article, no one really bothers about sb/server redundancy, load balancers, etc. are we ok with just 1 big server that may fail and bring several services down?
You saved a lot of money but you'll spend a lot of time in maintenance and future headaches.
It depends on the service and how critical that website is.
Sometimes it's completely acceptable that a server will run for 10 years with say 1 week or 1 month of downtime spread over those 10 years, yes. That's the sort of uptime you can see with single servers that are rarely changed and over-provisioned as many on Hetzner are. Some examples:
Small businesses where the website is not core to operations and is more of a shop-front or brochure for their business.
Hobby websites too don't really matter if they go down for short periods of time occasionally.
Many forums and blogs just aren't very important too and downtime is no big deal.
There are a lot of these websites, and they are at the lower end of the market for obvious reasons, but probably the majority of websites in fact, the long tail of low-traffic websites.
Not everything has to be high availability and if you do want that, these providers usually provide load balancers etc too. I think people forget here sometimes that there is a huge range in hosting from squarespace to cheap shared hosting to more expensive self-hosted and provisioned clouds like AWS.
Well why have downtime if you can avoid it with a bit of work?
But I do agree the poster should think about this. I don't think it's 'off' or misleading, they just haven't encountered a hardware error before. If they had one on this single box with 30 databases and 34 Nginx sites it would probably be a bad time, and yes they should think about that a bit more perhaps.
They describe a db follower for cutover for example but could also have one for backups, plus rolling backups offsite somewhere (perhaps they do and it just didn't make it into this article). That would reduce risk a lot. Then of course they could put all the servers on several boxes behind a load-balancer.
But perhaps if the services aren't really critical it's not worth spending money on that, depends partly what these services/apps are.
I run internal services on DO that I've considered moving to Hetzner for cost savings.
Could I take it down for the afternoon? Sure. Or could I wait and do it after hours? Also sure. But would I rather not have to deal with complaints from users that day and still go home by 5pm? Of course!
to be fair a lot of ppl still run this way and just have really good backups, or have an offline / truly on-prep server where they can flip the dns switch in case of true outage.
Yes and for many services that is totally fine. As long as you have backups of data and can redeploy easily. It's not how I personally do things usually but there is definitely a place for it.
Also, in general, you can architect your application to be more friendly to migration. It used to be a normal thing to think about and plan for.
VMware has a conversion tool that converts bare metal into images.
One could image, then do regular snapshots, maybe centralize a database being accessed.
Sometimes it's possible to create a migration script that you run over and over to the new environment for each additional step.
Others can put a backup server in between to not put a load on the drive.
Digital Ocean makes it impossible to download your disk image backups which is a grave sin they can never be forgiven for. They used to have some amount of it.
Still, a few commands can back up the running server to an image, and stream it remotely to another server, which in turn can be updated to become bootable.
This is the tip of the iceberg in the number of tasks that can be done.
Someone with experience can even instruct LLMs to do it and build it, and someone skilled with LLMs could probably work to uncover the steps and strategies for their particular use case.
A week of downtime every decade I think still works out to a higher uptime than I've been getting from parts of GitHub lately. So I'd consider that a win.
Respectfully, this type of "high availability" strawman is a dated take.
This is a general response to it.
I have run hosting on bare metal for millions of users a day. Tens of thousdands of concurrent connections. It can scale way up by doing the same thing you do in a cloud, provision more resources.
For "downtime" you do the same thing with metal, as you do with digital ocean, just get a second server and have them failover.
You can run hypervisors to split and manage a metal server just like Digital Ocean. Except you're not vulnerable to shared memory and cpu exploits on shared hosting like Digital Ocean. When Intel CPU or memory flaws or kernel exploits come out like they have, one VM user can read the memory and data of all the other processes belonging to other users.
Both Digital Ocean, and IaaS/PaaS are still running similar linux technologies to do the failover. There are tools that even handle it automatically, like Proxmox. This level of production grade fail over and simplicity was point and click, 10 years ago. Except no one's kept up with it.
The cloud is convenient. Convenience can make anyone comfortable. Comfort always costs way more.
It's relatively trivial to put the same web app on a metal server, with a hypervisor/IaaS/Paas behind the same Cloudflare to access "scale".
Digital Ocean and Cloud providers run on metal servers just like Hetzner.
The software to manage it all is becoming more and more trivial.
> This level of production grade fail over and simplicity was point and click, 10 years ago.
While some of the tools are _designed_ for point and click, they don't always work. Mostly because of bugs.
We run Ceph clusters under our product, and have seen a fair share of non-recoveries after temporary connection loss [1], kernel crashes [2], performance degradations on many small files, and so on.
Similarly, we run HA postgres (Stolon), and found bugs in its Go error checking cause failure to recover from crashes and full-disk conditions [3] [4]. This week, we found that full-disk situations will not necessarily trigger failovers. We also found that if DB connections are exhausted, the dameon that's supposed to trigger postgres failover cannot connect to do that (currently testing the fix).
I believe that most of these things will be more figured out with hosted cloud solutions.
I agree that self-hosting HA with open-source software is the way to. These softwares are good, and the more people use them, the less bugs they will have.
But I wouldn't call it "trivial".
If you have large data, it is also brutally cheaper; we could hire 10 full-time sysadmins for the cost of hosting on AWS, vs doing our own Hetzner HA with Free Software, and we only need ~0.2 sysadmins. And it still has higher uptime than AWS.
It is true that Proxomox is easy to setup and operate. For many people it will probably work well for a long time. But when things aren't working, it's not so easy anymore.
I'm not arguing for cloud or against bare metal hosting, just saying there is a broad range of requirements in hosting and not everyone needs or wants load balancers etc - it clearly will cost more than this particular poster wants to pay as they want to pay the bare minimum to host quite a large setup.
I feel like 95% of the web falls into this category. Like, have you ever said "That's it, I am never gonna visit this page again!", because of temporary downtime? Unless you are Amazon and every minute costs you bazillions, you are likely gonna get the better deal not worrying about availability and scalability. That 250€/m root server is a behemoth. Complete overkill for most anything. As a bonus, you are gonna be half the internet, when someone at AWS or Cloudflare touches DNS.
Exactly. I've never not bought something because the website was temporarily down. I've even bought from b&h photo!
Even if Amazon was down, if I was planning to buy, I'd wait. heck, I got a bunch of crap in my cart right now I haven't finished out.
Intentional downtime lets everyone plan around it, reduces costs by not needing N layers of marginal utility which are all fragile and prone to weird failures at times you don't intend.
For me at least, the only thing where availability really matters is main personal communication services. If Signal was down for an hour, I'd be a little stressed. Maybe utilities like public transportation, too, but that's because I now have to do that online.
> Intentional downtime lets everyone plan around it, reduces costs by not needing N layers of marginal utility which are all fragile and prone to weird failures at times you don't intend.
Quite frankly, I would manage if things were run "on-supply" with solar and would just go dark at night.
> Like, have you ever said "That's it, I am never gonna visit this page again!", because of temporary downtime?
That's a strawman version of what happens.
There have been times when I've tried to visit a webshop to buy something but the site was broken or down, so I gave up and went to Amazon and bought an alternative.
I've also experienced multiple business situations where one of our services went down at an inconvenient time, a VP or CEO got upset, and they mandated that we migrate away from that service even if alternatives cost more.
If you think of your customers or visitors as perfectly loyal with infinite patience then downtime is not a problem.
> Unless you are Amazon and every minute costs you bazillions, you are likely gonna get the better deal not worrying about availability and scalability. That 250€/m root server is a behemoth. Complete overkill for most anything.
You don't need every minute of downtime to cost "bazillions" to justify a little redundancy. If you're spending 250 euros/month on a server, spending a little more to get a load balancer and a pair of servers isn't going to change your spend materially. Having two medium size servers behind a load balancer isn't usually much more expensive than having one oversized server handling it all.
There are additional benefits to having the load balancer set up for future migrations, or to scale up if you get an unexpected traffic spike. If you get a big traffic spike on a single server and it goes over capacity you're stuck. If you have a load balancer and a pair of servers you can easily start a 3rd or 4th to take the extra traffic.
> There have been times when I've tried to visit a webshop to buy something but the site was broken or down, so I gave up and went to Amazon and bought an alternative.
Great. So how much did the webshop lose in that hour of maintenance (which realistically would be in the middle of the night for their main audience) and how much would they have paid for redundancy? Also a bit hard to believe you repeatedly ran into the situation of an item sold at a self-hosted webshop and Amazon alike. Are you sure they haven't just messed up the web dev biz? You could totally do that with AWS too...
> If you're spending 250 euros/month on a server, spending a little more to get a load balancer and a pair of servers isn't going to change your spend materially.
Of course, but that's not the argument. It's implied you can just double the 250€/m server for redundancy, as you would still get an offer at the fraction of cloud prices. But really that server needs no more optimization in terms of hardware diversification. As I said, it's complete overkill. Blogs and forums could easily be run on a 30€/m recycled machine.
These articles are popular where there's a mismatch between application requirements and the solution chosen. When someone over-engineers their architecture to be enterprise-grade (substitute your own definition of enterprise-grade) when really they were running a hobby project or a small business where a day of downtime every once in a while just means your customers will come back the next day, going all-out on cloud architecture is maybe not necessary. That's why you see so many comments from people arguing that downtime isn't always a big deal or that risking an outage is fine: There are a lot of applications where this is kind of true.
The confusing part about this article is the emphasis on a zero-downtime migration toward a service that isn't really ideal for uptime. It wouldn't be that expensive to add a little bit of architecture on the Hetzner side to help with this. I guess if you're doing a migration and you're paid salary or your time is free-ish, doing the migration in a zero downtime way is smart. It's a little funny to see the emphasis on zero downtime juxtaposed to the architecture they chose where uptime depends on nothing ever failing
Clever architecture will always beat cleverly trying to pick only one cloud.
Being cloud agnostic is best.
This means setting up a private cloud.
Hosted servers, and managed servers are perfectly capable of near zero downtime. this is because it's the same equipment (or often more consumer grade) that the "cloud" works on and plans for even more failure.
Digital Ocean definitely does not guarantee zero downtime. That's a lot of 9's.
It's simple to run well established tools like Proxmox on bare metal that will do everything Digital Ocean promises, and it's not susceptible to attacks, or exploits where the shared memory and CPU usage will leak what customers believe is their private VPS.
Nothing ever failing in the case of a tool like Proxmox is, install it on two servers, one VPS exists on both nodes (you connect both servers as nodes), click high availability, and it's generally up and running. Put cloudflare in front of it like the best preference practices of today.
If you're curious about this, there's some pretty eye opening and short videos on Proxmox available on Youtube that are hard to unsee.
Sadly, hardware breaks. You still need a working backup and a working failover plan, even if it's just setting up a new server and running your Terraform / Pulumi / Saltstack scripts.
Indeed, I missed the "two servers" part; a two-node mirrored config is what I suggested myself elsewhere in the thread. It's still much less expensive than anything comparable in the cloud.
Also, don't underestimate the reliability of simplicity.
I was a Linux sysadmin for many years, and I have never seen as much downtime from simpler systems as I routinely see from the more complicated setups. Somewhere between theory and reality, simpler systems just comes out ahead most of the time.
To be fair they were using a single VM on DigitalOcean, so they didn't had the perks of a cloud provider, except maybe the fact that a VM is probably more fault-tolerant than a bare metal server.
Usually those articles describe two situations:
- they were "on the cloud" for the wrong reasons and migrating to something more physical is the right approach
- they were "on the cloud" for the right reasons and migrating to something more physical is going to be a disaster
Here they appear to be in the first situation.
If their setup was running fine on DO and they put the right DR policies in place at Hetzner, they should be fine.
They may be making this decision based on a long history of, in fact, never really having run into "a lot of time in maintenance and future headaches".
To be fair, I migrated a VPS from Linode to Hetzner a few years ago. Minor downtime is a non-issue: personal website and email server. I approximately halved the monthly cost, and I haven't had any downtime except what I caused myself when rebooting to upgrade the kernel every now and then.
People also tend underestimate how much compute these dedicated servers got, compared to cloud offerings, and what that feels like without 100 layers of management abstraction in-between. You are likely not going to ever choke a plenty-cored, funny-RAMed root server at a fraction of your cloud costs. This overkill resource estate can be the answer to a lot of scalability worries. It's always there, no sharing shit all.
I don't know about Hetzner but with Upcloud and Vultr my single VPS setups have been more reliable than multiregion with redundancy setups with other providers like Fly.
A few weeks ago, I tested deploying Rails apps to Hetzner and Vultr for the first time using Hatchbox to deploy Rails apps onto them. I'm still supporting clients on Heroku, but there are potential new projects in the coming months that I might deploy elsewhere. Render is decent in some cases, but you can get a lot of bang for your buck deploying on Vultr, and Hatchbox makes it easy to do, whether you have one instance or a cluster. Hatchbox also helps with putting multiple apps/domains on a single server, a concept I had to give up long ago on Heroku. I've thought about deploying to DO plenty of times over the years, but there was always Heroku, and if I had to find a new home for Rails 8, I think I'd skip it in favor of a more powerful Vultr server. Hatchbox can provision Postgres for you, but Vultr has managed Postgres which is appealing to me. Or if you're just using Sqlite with Rails 8, that's easy to do with Hatchbox but not on Render since Render has an ephemeral file system.
I was thinking the same. A managed database is just set and forget pretty much. I do NOT miss the old times where I had to monitor my email from routine security checkups hoping my database didn't get hacked by some script kiddie accompanied by blackmail over email.
What are you running on it is the only question which matters, obviously you dont want air traffic control to go down but some app… So what if it goes down? Backup is somewhere else if you even need it anyway. Github has uptime less than 90% according to this: https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/ . And the world keeps turning. Obviously we should strive for better, but also lets please not continue making this uptime fetish out of it, for vast majority of the apps it absolutely doesnt fucking matter.
DO doesn't do high availability droplets, and their migration policy is will try, if we detect poor health of server before it fails.
If someone starts thinking about redundancy and load balancers than DO's solution is rent a second similar sized droplet, and then add their load balancing service. If you do those things with Hetzner instead, you would still be spending less than you did with Digital Ocean.
Personally, what is keeping me on DO is that no single droplet I have is large enough to justify moving on its own, and I'm not prepared to deal with moving everything.
Downtime happens in all different contexts of life that a web site/service being knocked offline is soo far down the priority list for most people.
It’s amusing that the US government can shutdown for days/weeks/months over budget reasons and there’s no adult discussions that take place about fixing the cause. Yet the latest HN demo that 100 people will use need all 9’s reliability and hundreds of responses.
To be fair, modern dedicated servers at hetzner have two power units, and come with a redundand ssd/hdd raid-1 config. AFAIK both ssd and power unit having hotplug capability, so in case either fails they can be replaced with zero downtime.
Given the downtimes we saw in the past year(s) (AWS, Cloudflare, Azure - the later even down several times), I would argue moving to any of the big cloud providers give you not much of a better guarantee.
I myself am a Hetzner customer with a dedicated vServer, meaning it is a shared virtual server but with dedicated CPUs (read: still oversubscribed, but some performance guarantee) and had zero hardware-based downtime for years [0]. I would guess their vservers are on similar redundant hardware where the failing components can be hotswapped.
[0] = They once within the last 3 years sent me an email that they had to update a router that would affect network connectivity for the vServer, but the notification came weeks in advance and lasted about 15 minutes. No reboot/hardware failure on my vServer though.
If you have the setup within server fully scripted and automated (bash, pyinfra or ansible etc) and backups are in place then recovery isn't that hard. Downtime for sure maybe couple of hours for which you can point your DNS entries to a static page while you're restoring everything.
I already made a comment here about testing Hatchbox. You point it to your servers and it can set up a cluster and load balancer with a few button clicks.
I wondered the same! FWIW I'm currently migrating from managed postgres to self-managed on hetzner with [autobase](https://autobase.tech/). Though of course for high availability it requires more than one server.
I agree with you, even for the servers I am responsible for I always make decisions like putting db on supabase instead of local, hosting files on s3 with versioning/multi region etc. then of course come up with a backup and snapshot system.
I had like... less than 10 minutes downtime on Hetzner in years (funny enough, that makes my personal containers more reliable than productionized AWS and GCP deployments with their constant partial outages).
So perhaps all that complexity (beyond maybe a backup container) isn't really necessary for companies where a bit of downtime doesn't really affect revenue?
Like, I know Leetcode tells otherwise, but most companies really don't need full FAANG stack with 99.999% uptime. A day of outage in a few years isn't going affect bottom lines.
The vast majority of services are actually alright with a little downtime here and there. In exchange, maintenance is a lot simpler with less moving parts.
People underestimate how far you can go with one or two servers. In fact, what I have seen in ky career is many examples of services that should have been running on one or two servers and instead went for a hugely complex microserviced approach, all in on Cloud providers and crazy requirements of reliability for a scale that never would come.
This is something we've[0] done a number of times for customers coming from various cloud providers. In our case we move customers onto a multi-server (sometimes multi-AZ) deployment in Hetzner, using Kubernetes to distribute workloads across servers and provide HA. Kubernetes is likely a lot for a single node deployment such as the OP, but it makes a lot more sense as soon as multiple nodes are involved.
For backups we use both Velero and application-level backup for critical workloads (i.e. Postgres WAL backups for PITR). We also ensure all state is on at least two nodes for HA.
We also find bare metal to be a lot more performant in general. Compared to AWS we typically see service response times halve. It is not that virtualisation inherently has that much overhead, rather it is everything else. Eg, bare metal offers:
- Reduced disk latency (NVMe vs network block storage)
- Reduced network latency (we run dedicated fibre, so inter-az is about 1/10th the latency)
- Less cache contention, etc [1]
Anyway, if you want to chat about this sometime just ping me an email: adam@ company domain.
> We also find bare metal to be a lot more performant in general
I measured this several years back and never looked at virtual servers again. Since CPU time isn't reserved (like RAM is), the performance is abysmal compared to real hardware.
Moving around k8s deployments is really nice. Very little vendor lockin compared to many of the cloud things you can buy.
My entire stack is.. k8s, hosted Postgres, s3 type storage. I can always host my own Postgres. So really down to k8s and s3. I think hetzner has some kind of s3 storage but haven’t looked into, and I assume moving in 100 TB is a process….
Hard to read this article as it was written by Claude as a report after the migration that Claude did for you.
If an llm helped you migrate and save this much money, kudos. But if you decide to write about it at least proof read it and remove redundant parts and llm storytelling.
Yeah, well be careful of Hetzner, I used to love them but I just migrated away. They just shut all all of our VMs over a $36 billing dispute. (~30 VMs we were using for our CI/CD pipeline) We provided them evidence with records of the payment in totality from our bank, they refused to look at it / discuss the dispute, even when we were communicating urgently and just ultimately shut off all our access. We're on Scaleway now.
Hm. Hetzners billing stuff is highly automated - but they usually give you about a month to pay your bill if the credit card payment failed for some reason.
Have had some hiccups with payments not going through myself that ended up in server IPs being restricted but they were very helpful on the phone and service was restored in about 30 minutes after the call. Decidedly not ideal but has been easily manageable since.
The migration sharing is admirable and useful teaching, thank you!
I see the DigitalOcean vs Hetzner comparison as a tradeoff that we make in different domains all day long, similar to opening your DoorDash or UberEats instead of making your own dinner(and the cost ratio is similar too).
I work in all 3 major clouds, on-prem, the works. I still head to the DigitalOcean console for bits and pieces type work or proof of concept testing. Sometimes you just want to click a button and the server or bucket or whatever is ready and here's the access info and it has sane defaults and if I need backups or whatnot it's just a checkbox. Your time is worth money too.
One is about all the steps of zero downtime migration. It's widely applicable.
The other is the decision to replace a cloud instance with bare metal. It saves a lot in costs, but also the loss of fast failover and data backups is priced in.
If I were doing this, I would run a hot spare for an extra $200, and switched the primary every few days, to guarantee that both copies work well, and the switchover is easy. It would be a relatively low price for a massive reduction of the risk of a catastrophic failure.
> Sometimes you just want to click a button and the server or bucket or whatever is ready and here's the access info and it has sane defaults and if I need backups or whatnot it's just a checkbox. Your time is worth money too.
You're describing Hetzner Cloud, which has been like this for many years. At least 6.
Hetzner also offers Hetzner Cloud API, which allows us to not have to click any button and just have everything in IaC.
Cute; I'd somehow missed ever seeing that one. The omitted con of electric engines (costs way more to build batteries than a gas tank so you're likely to have more expensive storage AND less of it) makes the XKCD joke miss. BUT... since there's probably something that Digital Ocean offers that Hetzner doesn't, that might actually be a very appropriate XKCD for the situation, precisely because there's a tradeoff the XKCD didn't mention. (I haven't used Hetzner so I don't know firsthand what the tradeoff is, but a quick search suggests Hetzner doesn't do Kubernetes so that might be the tradeoff for some people. Or it might be something else, everybody has their own situation).
A few months ago, I looked into AWS alternatives for my small SaaS side project. My main motivations were to save money and maybe support some EU cloud providers. At first, I planned to go with Hetzner and accepted that I would need to do a lot of things myself.
However, the dealbreaker for me was that Hetzner IPs have a bad reputation. At work, I learned that one of the managed AWS firewall rules blocks many (maybe all) of their IPs.
I can’t even open a website hosted on a Hetzner IP from my work laptop because it’s blocked by some IT policy (maybe this is not an issue for you if you are using CloudFlare or similar).
I've read online that the DDoS protection is very bad as well.
So in the end, I picked DO App Platform in one of the EU regions. Having the option to use a managed DB was a big plus as well.
Not sure what firewall rules you're referring to, but I'm genuinely surprised to see DO being trusted more than Hetzner. I often see DO's ASN when looking at scrapers/hackers, so I'd say it's only a matter of time until they're blocked as well.
It looks like Hetzner is Tor (and Tor adjacent) friendly, I suggested this might affect IP reputation, 2 users responded they had no IP reputation issues. But it looks like that wasn't quite the whole story
What are you doing for DB backups? Do you have a replica/standby? Or is it just hourly or something like that?
Because with a single-server setup like this, I'd imagine that hardware (e.g. SSD) failure brings down your app, and in the case of SSD failure, you then have hours or days downtime while you set everything up again.
Hetzner normally advertises their hardware servers as 2x 1 TB SSD, because it's strongly recommended to run them in SWraid1 for net 1TB. (Their image installer will default to that)
Once the first SSD fails after some years, and your monitoring catches that, you can either migrate to a new box, find another intermediate solution/replica, or let them hotswap it while the other drive takes on.
Of course though, going to physical servers loses redundency of the cloud, but that's something you need to price in when looking at the savings and deciding your risk model.
And yes, running this without also at least daily snapshotting/backup to remote storage is insane - that applies to cloud aswell, albeit easier to setup there.
For over a decade I ran a small scale dedicated and virtual hosting business (hundreds of machines) and the sort of setup you describe works very well. Software RAID across 2 devices, redundant power supplies, backups. We never had a significant data loss event that I recall (significant = beyond user accidentally removing files).
For quite a while we ran single power supplies because they were pretty high quality, but then Supermicro went through a ~6 month period where basically every power supply in machines we got during that time failed within a year, and replacements were hard to come by (because of high demand, because of failures), and we switched to redundant. This was all cost savings trade-offs. When running single power supplies, we had in-rack Auto Transfer Switches, so that the single power supplies could survive A or B side power failure.
But, and this is important, we were monitoring the systems for drive failures and replacing them within 24 hours. Ditto for power supplies. If you don't monitor your hardware for failure, redundancy doesn't mean anything.
It's possible no one will care much if it's down even for that long. I couldn't care less if my HOA mobile app was down even for a week for example. We don't need constant uptime for everything.
Don’t forget that integrity matters as much as availability in many applications. You might not mind if your HOA takes time to bring a server back up but you’d care a lot more if they lost the financial records or weren’t able to recover from a ransomware attack.
> Because with a single-server setup like this, I'd imagine that hardware ...
Yeah. This blog post reads like it was written by someone who didn't think things through and just focused on hyper-agressive cost-cutting.
I bet their DigitalOcean vm did live migrations and supported snapshots.
You can get that at Hetzner but only in their cloud product.
You absolutely will not get that in Hetzner bare-metal. If your HD or other component dies, it dies. Hetzner will replace the HD, but its up to you to restore from scratch. Hetzner are very clear about this in multiple places.
I'm not going to re-write it, the TL;DR is they are making an Apples and Oranges comparison.
Yes they "saved money" but in no way, shape or form are the two comparable.
The polite way to put is is .... they saved as much money as they did because they made very heavy handed "architectural decisions". "Decisions" that they appear to be unaware of having made.
Surely you must've noticed that pretty much all of their bare metal offerings ("dedicated" and the stuff on "auction") have multiple disks, allowing for various RAID configurations?
> Surely you must've noticed that pretty much all of their bare metal offerings ("dedicated" and the stuff on "auction") have multiple disks, allowing for various RAID configurations?
I don't know where to start with this comment. Do I really need to spell out the difference between cloud and bare metal ?
A few examples...
- Live migration ? Cloud only.
- Snapshots ? Cloud only.
- Want to increase disk space ? Tick box in cloud vs. replace disks (or move to different machine) and re-install/restore in bare metal....
- Want to increase RAM ? Tick box in cloud vs. shutdown, pull out of rack, install new chips (or move to different machine and re-install/restore)....
- Want to upgrade to a beefier processor ? Tick box in cloud vs move to a completely different machine and re-install/restore
You can get snapshots and live migrations working on-prem. The cloud isn't magic, it's just servers with hypervisors and software running on top of them. You can run that same software.
Also, with something like Hetzner you would not be going in and physically doing anything. You also just tick a box for a RAM upgrade, and then migrate over or do active/passive switch.
The cloud does have advantages, mostly in how "easy" it is to do some specific workflows, but per-compute it's at least 10x the cost. Some will argue it's less than that, but they forget to factor in just how slow virtual disks and CPU are. Cloud only makes sense for very small businesses, in which the operational cost of colocation or on-prem hosting is too expensive.
> Well you did say your data is lost when a disk fails, which is not true.
Well, technically its still a possibility.
I am old enough to have seen issues with RAID1 setups not being able to restore redundancy, as well as RAID controller failures and software RAID failures.
Also, frankly you are being somewhat pedantic. My broader point was regarding cloud. I gave HD Failure as one example, randomly selected by my brain ... I could have equally randomly chosen any of the other items ... but this time, my brain chose HD.
Can you elaborate? I'm coming up with similar designs recently (static site plus redundant servers) but my designs so far assume no database and ephemeral interactions. (Realtime multiplayer arcade games.)
Curious what the delta to pain-in-ass would be if I want to deal with storing data. (And not just backups / migrations, but also GDPR, age verification etc.)
database isn't hard to have HA with, it's actually very easy to do any of this.
i already design with Auto Scale Group in mind, we run it in spot instance which tend to be much cheaper. Spot instances can be reclaimed anytime, so you need to keep this is kind.
I also have data blobs which are memory maped files, which are swapped with no downtime by pulling manifest from GCS bucket each hour, and swapping out the mmaped data.
i use replicas, with automatic voting based failover.
I've used mongo with replication and automative failover for a decade in production with no downtime, no data lost.
Recently, got into postgres, so far so good. Before that i always used RDS or other managed solution like Datastore, but they cost soo much compared to running your own stuff.
Healthchecks start new server in no time, even if my Hertzner server goes out or if whole Hertzer goes out, my system will launch digital ocean nodes which will start soaking up all requests.
If that's the tradeoff they're willing to make, who are you to say that they're doing it wrong?
Not every app needs 24/7 availability. The vast majority of websites out there will not suffer any serious consequences from a few hours of downtime (scheduled or otherwise) every now and then. If the cost savings outweigh the risk, it can be a perfectly reasonable business decision.
A more interesting question would be what kind of backup and recovery strategy they have, and which aspects of it (if any) they had to change when they moved to Hetzner.
That's a trend which is more and more common nowadays.
I wish the industry would adopt more zero knowledge methods in this regards. They are existing and mathematically proven but it seems there is no real adoption.
- OpenAI wants my passport when topping up 100 USD
- Bolt wanted recently my passport number to use their service
- Anthropic seems wants to have passports for new users too
- Soon age restriction in OS or on websites
I wished there would be a law (in Europe and/or US) to minify or forbid this kind of identity verification.
I want to support the companies to not allow misuse of their platforms, at the same time my full passport photo is not their concern, especially in B2B business in my opinion.
I'm not a legal expert/lawyer but I do think a lot of this is not the company just randomly wanting to do it, but lawyer driven development. No company wants to introduce more friction for no reason, unless somehow there's precedent or risk involved in not doing it. Curious to know what legal precedents or laws have changed recently.
The only possible non legally driven reason I can think of would be if they think the tradeoff of extra friction (and lost customers) is more than offset by fraud protection efforts. This seems unlikely cause I don't see how that math could have changed in the last few years.
It's partially because the internet only grants us free storage (noun), not free compute (verb).
Which is fundamental to so many XY problems, including why cloud services are so byzantine instead of just providing isolated secure shells with full root access within them. And why distrust is a growing force in the world instead of, say, unconditional love.
I always dreamed of winning the internet lottery so that I could help dismantle the systems of control which currently dominate our lives. Which starts with challenging paradigms from first principles. That looks like asking why we only have multicore computing in the cloud and not on our desktops (which could be used to build our own cloud servers).
When we're missing an abstraction layer, that creates injustice and a power drain from the many to the few. Some examples:
- CPU -> multicore MIMD (missing) -> GPU (based on the subset SIMD instead of MIMD upon which graphics libraries could be built)
- UDP -> connectionless reliable stream (missing) -> TCP (should have been a layer above UDB not beside it)
- UDP/TCP -> P2P (NAT and other limitations block this and were inherited by IPv6 as generational trauma) -> WebRTC (redundant if we had P2P that "just works")
- internet connection -> symmetric upload/download speed (blocked for legal reasons under the guise of overselling to reduce cost) -> self-hosted web servers (rare due to antitrust issues stemming from said legal reasons)
- internet connection -> multicast (missing due to suppression of content-addressable-memory/hash-tree/DHT/) -> self-hosted streaming (negates the need for regions and edge caching)
I had high hopes for Google and even Tesla (for disrupting the physical world). But instead of open standards, they gave us proprietary vendor lock-in: Google Workspace (formerly G Suite) and NACS instead of J1772 (better yet both). Because of their refusal to interoperate at the lowest levels, there is little hope that they will do the real work of solving the hard problems at the highest levels.
For example, I just heard that China has built thousands of battery swap stations to provide effectively instant charging for electric vehicles, whereas that's something that Tesla can't accomplish because they chose to build Supercharger stations instead.
Once we begin to see the world this way, it's impossible to unsee it. It calls into question the fundamentals (like scarcity) which capitalism is based upon, and even the concept of profit itself.
From a spiritual perspective, I believe that this understanding is what blocks me from using my talents to use the system for personal gain to win the internet lottery. The people who own the systems of control don't have this understanding, and even view its basis in empathy as a liability. So we sacrifice the good of the many for the good of the few and call that progress.
I dont. I'm happy the grift economy has some controls on it. As much as I love open source and all the efforts in collective without government interference; some security is required, otherwise we'll just invite more grift based economics.
It's bad enough living in America without the rest of the world adopting the grift economy.
They have to operate within the laws of the countries they’re physically located in. Those countries want to know that they’re not hosting illegal content, providing services to crime rings, Russia or North Korea, etc.
If Hetzner allows you to host something and you use it for illegal acts, they aren’t going to jail to shield you for €10/month.
Hetzner is like 1/10th the cost of ripoffs like AWS now, the passport data is deleted after verification and I can actually trust this claim coming from an EU company under GDPR that doesn't have any use for my personal data. You can also just bypass the passport requirement entirely by making a €20 Paypal deposit to the account.
You just hear too many horror stories of data being leaked. Even if Hetzner uses a 3rd party system to do the verification - that 3rd party probably has to store your pics for some time.
But at least if there is an alternative then great.
They do not. I've never had to present any documentation whatsoever to Hetzner and have been a happy customer for many years.
As I understand it, they ask only from accounts that check several boxes for common cases of abuse. So basically, personal accounts (as opposed to business accounts) from poor countries (by per capita, so e.g. India qualifies as poor).
That’s like saying Mercedes is a scam because you’re fine with a Honda Civic. It’s a totally legitimate preference but not being in the target market doesn’t make something a scam.
AWS ain't no Mercedes. Mercedes feels premium and isn't full of bugs.
AWS and Azure a charging an arm and a leg, but the offered quality is mostly perceived. Most of the bits and bobs they charge for are not providing much value for a vast majority of businesses. I won't even go over the complete lack of ergonomics with their portals.
I see you have strong emotions about this but really my point was simply that AWS customers are paying for things they value which you do not. It’s fine for you not to share their priorities but any time people are paying billions of dollars for something in a competitive market, it’s a mistake to say they’re all fools or being fooled.
I see you've never actually owned or worked on a German car, especially in relation to even modest Japanese models. Maybe they were a little nicer inside in the 80s and maybe 90s, but "German car" and frankly "European make" is basically synonymous with "big expensive pile of shit that's an expensive pain in the ass when things start falling apart (which they seem to with increasing rapidity)." It's like the disease that plagued British cars for the longest time got contaminated with the German propensity to build overly complex monstrosities.
Each has their trade offs. AWS absolutely has a high premium but Hetzner has some quirks.
Recently we had several of our VMs offline because they apparently have these large volume storage pools they were upgrading and suddenly disks died in two large pools. It took them 3 days to resolve.
Hetzner has no integrated option to backup volumes and its roll your own :/ You also can't control volume distribution on their storage nodes for redundancy.
No, they just don't know what value AWS provides. And honestly you'll never know until you roll out your own Dedicated servers and later you'll wonder why you never did it sooner.
Cloud used to be marketed for scalability. "Netflix can scale up when people are watching, and scale down at night".
Then the blogosphere and astroturfing got everyone else on board. How can $5 on amazon get you less than what you got from almost any VPS (VDS) provider 10 years ago?
I don't think it's fair to call AWS a scam. It's complicated and powerful and it charges a lot for many services compared to a DIY approach. But you can see the prices transparently on its site, it provides a free tier to try most services out, it is fairly good about long term support for services and how it handles forced upgrades when they become necessary, and generally it has an OK reputation for customer support even if something unexpected and very bad happens. You're certainly paying a price for the convenience and the brand but I don't think that's a scam if you're making an informed choice. If you want to save money then you can replace RDS with Postgres running on VMs but the trade off is then you have to manage your database infrastructure yourself.
In the big corporate world, this would be a $600m budget, creating multiple VPs, thousands of positions, multi-cloud and multi-dc kubernetes, tons of highly paid consultants, the migration would take 9 - 12 years, create so many success stories, lessons learnt, promotions, etc etc.
If you’re migrating a large MySQL database and you’re not
using mydumper/myloader, you’re doing it the hard way.
If you aren't using xtrabackup you are doing it wrong. I recently migrated a database with 2TB of data from 5.7 to 8.4 with about 15 seconds of down time. It wouldn't have been possible without xtrabackup. Mysqldumper requires a global write block, I wouldn't call blocking writes for hours a "zero downtime migration".
I have experience in migrating large DBs with replication and the article not discussing write blocks made my ears perk up as well.
Aside from the blocking you mentioned during the initial snapshot, you'd need to block writes to the old DB before the cutover as well. There's no way to guarantee in-flight writes to the old DB aren't lost when promoting the replica to a primary otherwise. I'm surprised the author didn't go into more detail here. Maybe it was fine given their workload, but the key issue I see is that they promoted the new DB to a primary before stopping the old application. During that gap, any data written to the old DB would be lost.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but done with a proxy in-between that can "pause" requests, you could have done the move with 0 seconds and no rejected requests, and I don't think mydumper/myloader/xtrabackup matters for that. The "migration" would be spinning up a new database, making it catch up, then switching over. If you can pause/hang in-flight requests while switching, not a single one needs to fail :)
The "making it catch up" is the tricky part. You need an initial backup for that. xtrabackup can take that backup "hot" without blocking read/writes. mysqldumper will block writes for whatever time that initial backup takes, for 2TB of data that's going to be hours.
Once you have that initial back up you can set your replica and make it catch up , then you switch. I choose to take the few seconds of downtime doing the switch because for my use case that was acceptable.
If you want a consistent backup that you can use to setup a replica you need to block writes while the backup is taken, take the backup while the database is shutdown OR use xtrabackup.
Really interesting sharing, thanks! Why lower the TTL to 300 instead of something like 60 or 30, to make the switch even faster? The nameservers were DO's, so they should've been more than able to handle the increased load.
BTW, I've been a client of Hetzner (Cloud, Object Storage, and Storage Box) for a few years now, very happy with them!
I know they've been bought out by Akamai or whatever but I've been using Linode for over 10 years and I still go to them if I need a VPS. I don't have extreme needs, but they seem to be always improving or adding features comparable to other providers and the UI is consistent so I don't see a reason to change. Any time there has been an issue they've migrated me to a new host automatically without even needing to do anything. I combine it with Dokploy now and just deploy most of my projects via Docker Compose and private GitHub repos.
I've had excellent experiences with Percona xtrabackup for MySQL migration and backups in general. It runs live with almost no performance penalty on the source. It works so well that I always wait for them to release a new matching version before upgrade to a new MySQL version.
> The key: proxy_ssl_verify off — the new server’s SSL cert is valid for the domain, not for the IP address. Disabling verification here is fine because we control both ends.
Not really, a MITM could do anything here. It's not very likely to happen here, but I think this comment shows a misunderstanding of what certificates and verification does.
The "where's the HA?" comments are missing that this was a single DO droplet before. The migration didn't reduce redundancy, it just moved the single point of failure from one provider to another for 1/6 the cost. The HA conversation is worth having, but it's a separate conversation from this migration.
>Skyrocketing inflation and a dramatically weakening Turkish Lira against the US dollar
This reasoning does not add up. They could simply say they needed to move somewhere cheaper, like Hetzner. Inflation is still high but getting lower. Weakened Turkish Lira part is not correct because dollar is artificially suppressed for a very long time.
They're great but I wish Hetzner had a US (or CA) east coast presence, the latency of going across the ocean is really troublesome. They have some presence for their cloud offering, so they at least have some experience with the idea.
I had my fair share of Hyperscaler -> $something_else migrations during the past year. I agree, especially with rented hardware the price-difference is kind of ridiculous.
The issue is though, that you loose the managed part of the whole Cloud promise. For ephemeral services this not a big deal, but for persistent stuff like databases where you would like to have your data safe this is kind of an issue because it shifts additional effort (and therefore cost) into your operations team.
For smaller setups (attention shameless self-promotion incoming) I am currently working on https://pellepelster.github.io/solidblocks/cloud/index.html which allows to deploy managed services to the Hetzner Cloud from a Docker-Compose like definition. E.g. a PostgreSQL database with automatic backup and disaster recovery.
I wish we had something like Hetzner dedicated near us-east-1.
They do offer VPS in the US and the value is great. I was seriously looking at moving our academic lab over from AWS but server availability was bad enough to scare me off. They didn't have the instances we needed reliably. Really hoping that calms down.
Hetzner oversells hardware which means your neighbors are a drag on your performance. If your server is mostly idle, this might be a good move. If not, it probably won't be worth it.
> Old server nginx converted to reverse proxy We wrote a Python script that parsed every server {} block across all 34 Nginx site configs, backed up the originals, and replaced them with proxy configurations pointing to the new server. This meant that during DNS propagation, any request still hitting the old IP was silently forwarded. No user would see a disruption.
What was the config on the receiving side to support this? Did you whitelist the old server IP to trust the forwarding headers? Otherwise you’d get the old server IP in your app logs. Not a huge deal for an hour but if something went wrong it can get confusing.
Congrats on doing this successfully, but your setup is amateur. This would have been infinitely easier if you were using IaC (Terraform/Ansible), containerized applications (that you're not already doing that is madness), and had a high-availability cluster setup in place already. It sounds like avoiding downtime is important to you, yet there's no redundancy in the existing stack at all, and everything is done by hand.
This isn't something others should use as an example.
When some component in OP's dedicated server fails, they will find out what that extra DO money was going toward. The DO droplet will live migrate to a healthy server. OP gets to take an extended outage while they file a Hetzner service ticket and wait for a human to perform the hardware replacement. Do some online research and see how long this often takes. I don't believe this Hetzner dedicated server model even has redundant PSUs.
Anyone who thinks DO and Hetzner dedicated servers are fungible products is making a mistake. These aren't the same service at all. There are savings to be had but this isn't a direct "unplug DO, plug in Hetzner" situation.
Hetzner also offers a VPS with superior specs to their old DO server for €374.99/month, or €0.6009/hour. They could just switch to a VPS temporarily while waiting for the hardware fix.
Although since they were running a LEMP server stack manually and did their migration by copying all files in /var/www/html via rsync and ad-hoc python scripts, even a DO droplet doesn't have the best guarantee. Their lowest-hanging fruit is probably switching to infrastructure as code, and dividing their stack across multiple cheaper servers instead of having a central point of failure for 34 applications.
The comparison is somewhat skewed, since they went from an (expensive) virtual server to a cheaper dedicated server (hardware).
One of the new risks is if anything critical happens with the hardware, network, switch etc. then everything is down, until someone at Hetzner go fixes it.
With a virtual server it’ll just get started on a different server straight away. Usually hypervisors also has 2 or more network connections etc.
And hopefully they also got some backup setup.
It’s still a huge amount of of savings and I’d probably do the same of I were in their shoes, but there is tradeoffs when going from virtual- to dedicated hardware.
I moved from Heztner to DO because my Hetzner IPs kept getting spoofed and then Hetzner would shut down my servers for "abuse". This hasn't happened once on DO, and I'm happy to pay a little more.
> We need more competition across the board. These savings are insane and DO should be sweating, right?
As the other person already said here, this blog post comparison is skewed.
BUT
EU cloud providers are much better value for money than the US providers.
The US providers will happily sit there nickle and diming you, often with deliberately obscure price sheets (hello AWS ;).
EU cloud provider pricing is much clearer and generally you get a lot more bang for your buck than you would with a US provider. Often EU providers will give you stuff for free that US providers would charge you for (e.g. various S3 API calls).
Therefore even if this blog post is skewed and incorrect, the overall argument still stands that you should be seriously looking at Hetzner or Upcloud or Exoscale or Scaleway or any of the other EU providers.
In addition there is the major benefit of not being subject to the US CLOUD and PATRIOT acts. Which despite what the sales-droids will tell you, still applies to the fake-EU provided by the US providers.
I did the same this year. I really liked Digital Ocean though, compared to more complex cloud offerings like AWS. AWS feels like spending more for the same complexity. At least DO feels like it does save time and mental band width. Still though, the performance of cloud VPS is abysmal for the price. I'm now on Hetzner + K3's plus Flux CD (with Cloudflare for file storage (R2) and caching. I run postgres on the same machine with frequent dump backups. If I ever need realtime read replicas, I'll likely just migrate the DB to Neon or something and keep Hetzner with snapshots for running app containers.
does anyone else start to wonder about these companys issuing vps/online space with no hardening and no warning
you can basically go on hetzner and spin up a vps with linux that is exposed to the open internet with open ports and user security and within a few hours its been hacked, there is no like warning pop up that says "if you do this your server will be pwnd"
i especialy wonder with all the ai provisioned vps and postgres dbs what will happen here
Given the premise that zero day exploits are going to be frequent going forward, I feel like there is a new standard for secure deployment.
Namely, all remote access (including serving http) must managed by a major player big enough to be part of private disclosure (e.g. Project Glasswing).
That doesn't mean we have to use AWS et al for everything, but some sort of zero trust solution actively maintained by one of them seems like the right path. For example, I've started running on Hetzner with Cloudflare Tunnels.
If I remember correctly (it has been a while since I looked), Hetzner although is a lot cheaper on the price sheet, they're European region by default and then if you look to get US region servers at Hetzner, the pricing is a lot higher and similar to Digital Ocean. Is that still the case?
For OP though who is a Turkey-based company and want European region servers anyway, it might make sense.
For what I use Hetzner for, and OP from the article, Hetzner only has dedicated servers in Europe, so there really isn't anything to compare to :) If I need dedicated servers in the US, I'd probably go with Vultr.
I think Hetzner makes most sense (for myself, and OP seemingly too) because they have dedicated servers, and they're in Europe. Extra bonus is the unmetered connection, but primarily just good and cheap servers :)
I assume a vm on DO is HA protected. Also storage might live on a Cluster. Did you consider a socond dedi or do you just accept the risk of longer failover time and data loss time (RPO) for recovering to a newly provisioned server? Would love to know your thoughts on this especially as the migration was well designed and executed.
I started with DO in 2013 when they offered 20GB SSD, 512MB RAM for $5/mo. For some reason I paid no VAT then, but I do now. Their $4/mo option now is still 512MB, still 1 vCPU, but 10GB SSD. So it's like the last decade of technological progress with regards to RAM, CPU and storage that should either lead to price cuts/spec bumps didn't happen. And yeah, DO got expensive before AI bought up all the memory.
Did this about a year ago, went smoother than expected tbh. the main gotcha for us was DO's managed postgres — had to dump/restore manually since there's no direct migration path to Hetzner's managed DBs. ended up just self-hosting postgres on a separate box which has been fine, maybe even better.
A zero-downtime migration to a single database server? Power fails, disks fail, even CPU fans sometimes fail and bring a single server to a halt. Somehow I would have expected at least a high-available database cluster with multiple machines for applications "serving hundreds of thousands of users".
I considered going to hetzner at one point but I read a lot of stories around hetzner that didn't inspire confidence. Primarily that they're not really that much cheaper than going to other companies offering something similar.
If some people can chime in with their positive experiences I might switch.
Am I missing something? I'm genuinely surprised it was not deployed from the start on a dedicated server. Don't you make a cost analysis before deploy? And if the cost analysis was ok at initial deploy, why wait to have such a difference in cost before migrating? How much money goes wasted in such situations?
Managed services have value. It's less to set up, less to maintain, and less worrying about waking up at 3am when something breaks.
I've spent time eating the costs of things like DigitalOcean or SaaS products because my time is better spent growing my revenue than reducing infrastructure costs. But at some point, costs can grow large enough that's it's worthwhile to shift focus to reducing infrastructure spend.
> The key: proxy_ssl_verify off — the new server’s SSL cert is valid for the domain, not for the IP address. Disabling verification here is fine because we control both ends.
Yeah - no, it's not. They made the MitM attack possible with this change. The exposure was limited to those 5 minutes, but it should have been a known risk.
Also not certain how they could check the apps on the new server with the read-only database, while it was a replica?
Still, nice to hear it succeeded, the reasons sound very familiar.
The problem with actually owning hardware is that you need a lot of it, and need to be prepared to manage things like upgrading firmware. You need to keep on top of the advisories for your network card, the power unit, the enterprise management card, etc. etc. If something goes wrong someone might need to drive in and plug in a keyboard.
Eventually we admitted to ourselves we didn't want those problems.
“Your own server in a colo” means going to the colo to swap RAM or an SSD when something goes wrong. You rent a server and the benefit is the rentor has spare parts on hand and staff to swap parts out.
You have to deal with a lot more stuff. You have to order/pay for a server (capex), mount it somewhere, wire up lights-out-mgmt and recovery and do a few more tasks that the provider has already done.
Then, say if the motherboard gives up, you have to do quite a bit of work to get it replaced, you might be down for hours or maybe days.
For a single server I don't think it makes sense. For 8 servers, maybe. Depends on the opportunity cost.
Have you done this yourself? If you haven't I think you'd discover server hardware is actually shockingly reliable. You could go years without needing to physically touch anything on a single machine. I find that people who are used to cloud assume stuff is breaking all the time. That's true at scale, but when you have a handful of machines you can go a very long time between failures.
Yes, having done this for decades, it happens often enough that you need to plan for it. You need to have redundancy, spare parts, and staffing or you are basically gambling. All of this has to be tested, too, or you might find that your failover mechanism has dependencies you didn’t plan for or unexpected failure modes (I’ve twice experienced data center hard outages due to the power distribution system failing oddly when switching between mains and UPS power, or UPS and generator).
Using something like AWS can make it easy to assume that servers don’t fail often but that’s because the major players have all of that behind the scenes, heavily tested, and will migrate VMs when prefail indicators trigger but before stuff is done.
If you have failover redundancy of services across your systems of some kind to mitigate then great. With proper setup no worries. I guess it depends how much you want to take on vs hand off.
is a pity that Hetzner does not have monitoring agent like DO. in DO you can set alerts and view all metrics. its this one thing that keeps me from migrating because i dont want to install custom monitoring solutions.
I also have used DO for years, and was very happy with the quality of their service. Until I found the alternative prices. Not as easy to use, but much better performance for much lower prices.
> 30 MySQL databases (248 GB of data)
> 34 Nginx virtual hosts across multiple domains
> GitLab EE (42 GB backup)
> Neo4J Graph DB (30 GB graph database)
> Supervisor managing dozens of background workers
> Gearman job queue
> Several live mobile apps serving hundreds of thousands of users
He's doing all of that on a single server?!
I'm not against vertical scaling and stuff, but 30 db instances in one server is just crazy.
It's an average of 8GB per database, I guess he serves multiple clients and decided to "segregate" each client on its instance. If it's acceptable for the business it's nothing wrong with his setup.
Just watch out Hetzner don’t fail to take a payment from you from their end then proceed to flag your account for non-payment all while communicating absolutely nothing about this to you arriving at the conclusion they will delete all your servers and ban your account and identity from ever using them again.
Happened to me.
I now advise people to avoid clown-led services like Hetzner and stick to more reputable, if not as cheap, options.
Ah yes, create db replica, promote replica to primary. Seems so simple!
When I’ve seen this work well, it’s either built into the product as an established feature, or it’s a devops procedure that has a runbook and is done weekly.
Doing it with low level commands and without a lot of experience is pretty likely to have issues. And that’s what happened here.
It's tough to work with these publicly traded companies. They need to boost prices to show revenue growth. At some point, they become a bad deal. I've already migrated from DO. Not because of service or quality, but solely because of price.
Yeah just how it is even outside of the cloud. At some point nearly all companies eventually try to take advantage of inertia and vendor lock in, if you are willing to undertake the pain of switching it's almost always a savings.
And DigitalOcean customer support is non-existent. I had a mail server down and they cut service instead of trying to contact me in any other way. But worse, when they do that, they immediately destroy your data without any possibility to restore. Or at least that's what they told me with their bog standard, garbage support replies. I was a customer for nearly a decade. After it happened, I realized that never would have happened on GCP, AWS, etc. Because they take billing seriously with multiple contact info, a recovery period, etc. All the things a company would be expected to do to maintain good relationships with customers during a billing issue that lasts a few weeks. That was a couple of years ago, so maybe they fixed some stuff. But the complete lack of support and unprofessional B2B practices was an eye opener.
DigitalOcean just absolutely is just not an enterprise solution. Don't trust it with your data.
Oh, and did I mention I had been paying the upcharge for backups the entire time?
As such, I doubt the noted price reduction is reproducible. Combine this with Hetzner's sudden deletions of user accounts and services without warning, and it's a bad proposition. Search r/hetzner and r/vps for hetzner for these words: banned, deleted, terminated; there are many reports. What should stun you even more about it is that Hetzner could ostensibly be closely spying on user data and workloads, even offline workloads, without which they won't even know who to ban.
The only thing that Hetzner might potentially be good for is to add to an expendable distributed compute pool, one that you can afford to lose, but then you might as well also use other bottom-of-the-barrel untrustworthy providers for it too, e.g. OVH.
You could have loaded the Hetzner pricing page and checked - the server in the article is currently listed around $30/month higher. Not enough to materially change the equation
I think Digital Ocean is not something where I would worry about costs. I would prefer server like Hetzner but I don't think DO is service where the costs are such that we need to do movement.
Plus, this is not what DHH was doing, he was not saving few bucks, but unlocking potential for his company to thrive.
If you only have Rs. 100 in your pocket, you will think hard before spending Rs. 10. If you have Rs. 1000 in your pocket, you will not mind spending Rs. 10. That said, even if you are financially sound, why in the world would you want to pay $14k extra for a similar service that is available cheaper? That money could be better utilised elsewhere.
It's a nice chunk of change, which you could use for other purposes. It might not make or break the company, but it could pay for something that actually generates business.
when i save money on something without losing performance or reliability, i feel like a real hacker and money saved is just cherry on top of self accomplishment i feel.
I suspect with that money you could get a full time customer support person for your business. Now think about it, what's creating more value to your customers: having your infra on Digital Ocean or having a better customer support?
> Old server: CentOS 7 — long past its end-of-life, but still running in production. New server: AlmaLinux 9.7 — a RHEL 9 compatible distribution and the natural successor to CentOS.
So they did same mistake all over again. Debian or Ubuntu would just be upgrade-in-place and migrate
I moved two servers, one from Linode and the other from DO to Hetzner a few months ago, with similar savings. The best part was that the two servers had tens of different sites running, implemented in different languages, with obsolete libraries, MySQL and Redis instances. A total mess. Well: Claude Code migrated it all, sometimes rewriting parts when the libraries where no longer available. Today complex migrations are much simpler to perform, which, I believe, will increase the mobility across providers a lot.
IMO nobody was paying for magic compute. they're paying to not touch ten years of glue.
if agents eat that glue, the moat gets thin fast.
> agents eat that glue
No wonder they hallucinate :)
It's when they sniff the glue, then things get wild.
It's been like 90% glue since perl took over.
Don’t forget staples and the tape too. LLMs have a weakness for paperclips, hope we don’t end up on that path
The problem is a lot of this glue is proprietary by design at the various cloud services. I realize there are open source and alternative abstractions for a lot of of the same services, but there’s still quite a bit of glue if you’re on AWS, for example, and looking to move to bare metal.
But maybe I’m just thinking of the current capabilities of agents, and if we fast forward a couple years, even removing these abstractions or migrating will be very low friction.
But you can run most of the glue on your own dedicated instances.
I run k8s on a bunch of dedicated servers that are super cheap and I have all bells and whistles - just tell your coding agent to do it. You can literally design the thing you would never do yourself and it works brilliantly.
Postgres running on dedicated hardware replicated and with wal backups - easy just tell codebuff (my harness of choice) to do it. Then any number of firewalls, load balancers, bastion servers, etc. if you can imagine it , codebuff will implement it.
Yeah, at the last job there was a single outdated external wiki server left sitting in DO for those kinds of reasons while everything updated and internal had moved already (if not twice). If it hadn't become such a security risk it would never have been moved.
Wow a Claude add embedded into a Hetzner add.
How deep does this go?
I have just seen with my own eyes Claude astroturfing on a gamedev subreddit from a botting account that was picked up by Google so I could see a few of their other comments. This account's operation was going on development subs complaining about how good Claude's latest model is and how awful it is being afraid of losing one's job to AI.
I know your comment is tongue-in-cheek and the poster here is kinda known, but this kind of astroturfing is a new low and it's everywhere on forums such as these.
I see a lot of these posts on Reddit, too, but I don't think it's actually Anthropic or Claude doing it. It's the same old Reddit karma farmers picking up on the latest trends. They've always combined headlines with ragebait to build karma and now LLM bots make it easier than ever.
It's too bad Reddit allows accounts to hide their comment history now. That was an easy way to identify bot accounts before they started allowing accounts to hide their post history
That is a pity but on the bright side it also helps people to avoid being stalked and harassed.
I think it probably is claude and anthropic. It kicked off in earnest towards the end of last year when "AI bubble" news stories peaked.
They're incredibly exposed to investor sentiment and were likely panicking around sept/oct/nov time when AI bubble stories were trending.
These posts were really consistent and repetitive - similar language about "scary good" models and fear of losing jobs.
The whole internet is like this now, and it's only just getting started. Makes me sick tbh, and I am still questioning if this is the kind of industry I want to work in.
For those who remember Digg, the recently relaunched a new version and shut it down almost immediately. They were getting hammered with AI bots when it was realized the Digg apparently still has good SEO. The explain it right on homepage.
https://digg.com/
They explained it with an AI generated post
> I am still questioning if this is the kind of industry I want to work in
I'm not. I stick around for the popcorn, and I'm not gonna miss the schadenfreude in a few years.
I've been warning people of Anthropic's astroturfing for a while now. The amount of "Insert latest model/Claude Code is scary. I'm worried about my job" posts, followed by a doom ridden writing about how their job was automated and 30 dudes got fired and the person is pivoting into plumbing or something or working at Mcdonalds, is just too suspicious not to note. Sometimes it's more covert. They don't mention any provider/model. Sometimes there's a subtle insert somewhere in the body, Opus, Claude, etc.
I was really confused, then, realized the person you’re replying to misspelled “ad” as "add", and you’re moving forward with the premises GP is an ad, and this HN submission is an ad. Then, you share you saw a Reddit account on a gamedev subreddit complaining AI is too good, & they're worried they won’t have a job, and you believe that Reddit account must have been an ad for AI.
Just noting for fellow just-waking-up people
(edit: OP edited)
It's not necessarily astroturfing. There is a seismic shift under way regarding how things get done in this business, and if you don't acknowledge it, that's weird in itself.
I've certainly noticed a seismic shift in how bad support and updates have gotten with some 3rd party vendors we use, and the answer they come back with is always that they're experimenting with AI. Not saying AI isn't part of the job now, but it is getting seriously over hyped and over extended.
It's absolutely not seismic. If you've used AI for a little bit, you'll realize it's good at writing boilerplate code. Any complex logic, and you better re-read and correct the code a few times until you trust it.
Of course if all you do is "host wordpress website" (like 80% of what's "webdev" do), it will work. Now the issue is that the last 20% are the hardest to cover, and current AI methods will not get there (you need some much more complex methods, like being able to integrate logic with learning-based ML, to do this)
It would seem that way for sure, if it was just a random anon posting it, but the person you're replying to is the creator of Redis so I feel it's more likely a genuine opinion/experience rather than a Claude ad...
This is the redis guy you're replying to, I doubt he's on Claude's payroll
I think it is more the other direction. I asked Claude how to save money on my cloud costs, and it suggested migrating from DO to Hetzner.
"ad", with a single "d".
So it's a Claude ad inside a Hetzner ad inside a decent grammar ad.
Don't forget the ad hominem
The amount of ad populum around this issue certainly reaches ad absurdum levels.
You forgot that this entire forum is a VC/incubator ad. Its ads all the way down.
Ad for which elementary school?
Come on can you really nitpick grammar when your original message contains: "when the libraries where[sic] no longer available"
Btw this type of grammar error can be found by proofreading your posts with ChatGPT powered OpenClaw assistant.
I was joking. I notoriously write bad English but don't like using LLMs for writing. It removes personality.
I mean if it were anyone else, yeah I might agree, but I think Salvatore is being genuine here (and have seen Claude do a similarly surprising job fixing ops issues).
On the other hand he has totally drunk the Kool-AI(d).
I don't think so. I think he's clearly abusing language (saying "Claude Code migrated the stufff", rather than "I migrated the stuff after using Claude to help write boilerplate, then I went on double-checking it, testing it, and then running it")
I don't think you've nailed it either. He SHOULD be saying "54 days ago, I powered on my computer and opened a terminal. From my editor I reviewed my code files and realized I had quite a mess on my hands. Realizing it was the year A.D. 2026, I decided to fire up a modern tool. I typed "claude" into my terminal. As it launched I told it I wanted helping taking my running programs and moving them from the virtual private servers I was running in Linode (inc) and Digital Ocean (co) to Hetzner (LLC). As Claude used it's tool use abilities it read the files and made suggestions on how to do the migrations, it indicated that it could go ahead and copy the files and run the needed commands but I would need to give it permission first. I granted it permission. Once it said the services were running, I instructed it to test that they were accessible and reliable while I reviewed the glowing new code it had written. In summary, with the help of Claude Code I was able to redeploy 37 services in Hetzner."
I think the parent has a point. For how many other accomplishments is the tool framed as the responsible party? We don't say "cranes built the skyscraper", people did. Why do we shift accountability when it comes to AI?
If you vaguely describe to the crane what you want built, and it builds it, then I'd say the crane built it.
On Monday a crane company announces it’s pivoting to AI, followed by a quick 600% boost to its stock price. I wouldn’t even be surprised at this point.
Because it shows you are hip and trendy and MAYBE you deserve a job in the AI era
For clarity and accuracy, in the hopes that the person reading it interprets in good faith.
Its certainly a choice to accuse antirez of all people
True, let's not criticize those saints of ours.
By this logic your most recent comment was just an ad for Netflix.
Not every fscking story has to be about AI.
They didn't make it about AI, they mentioned a tool that helped with the migration. I find it relevant and helpful to know.
I don't see it as much different from "I used script X to do it" or something.
Excuse my ignorance, but how is that migration (especially of older libraries that are apparently being rewritten) not just a copy/paste action from one server to the other? When I build software to deploy it it includes everything it requires library wise. At least the few things I've deployed so far.
You have to copy data across, and confirm that everything worked correctly, and if you're being fancy about it you need to freeze writes to the old server while you are migrating and then unfreeze after you've directed traffic to the new server. It's not trivial.
Sometimes you need library version X, which uses a compiled binary for the platform, which requires C library version Y, which requires glibc version Z, which is deprecated on the current version of the OS, etc etc etc.
Or you can update the app to remove the dependency on the library.
But honestly, this is what containers or VMs are built for in the first place.
I don't see what checking a file system has to do with anything either.
They really can't help themselves showing how they didn't put any effort doing a thing.
Yeah, OP is famous for never having put effort into anything, just an AI shill /s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvatore_Sanfilippo
This whole thread is hilarious.
You may not be interested in AI, but AI is interested in you.
I use that phrase with "done with Microsoft," but it fits well here too!
Linode is going to lose my business in the next couple months as well. Been there over a decade, have referred countless customers to them, but they’ve kept bumping up prices over and over and I can get a dedicated server at Hetzner or other places with 8x the memory, dedicated NVMe disks, dedicated CPU for cheaper.
Sure you lose a little of the benefit of a “virtual” server which can be migrated but Hetzner’s support has always been super fast and capable, should I wind up in a situation where I’ve got downtime.
I too, am bravely using Claude for more DevOps. I run all of my virtual machines on proxmox atop bare metal servers I own and I’m just blown away at how quickly Claude can optimize and set up entire new networks across all of these machines. Truly feels like a coworker or well paid sysadmin.
I’ve been experimenting with letting a local agent manipulate my remote servers using https://bower.sh/zmx-ai-portal
What’s exciting is how simple cli tools can be so impactful to dev workflows
Sure, and then you realize it deleted the db to "simplify the migration" lol
Obviously I agree that AI can be useful to write boilerplate, but it's in no way something you should use blindly when trying to do a migration or anything touching prod
So, to be more precise: no, "Claude Code didn't migrate it all". Claude Code helped you write boilerplate so that you could migrate
Claude gave him the courage to do the migration.
And, recent research suggests that anthropomorphization may actually be positively correlated with intelligence.
> Today complex migrations are much simpler to perform, which, I believe, will increase the mobility across providers a lot.
Syntax did a nice episode on this topic recently. They went over where it works well, and where it does not work well.
https://syntax.fm/show/992/migrating-legacy-code-just-got-ea...
Now imagine you can do that with a local model. You're basically breaking lockin on _Every_ end. Simply beautiful. A digital guillotine for the digital elite!
yeah, everything is about to be repriced.
I’m formulating plans to switch from AWS to Hetzner. Amazon gets you by charging high prices (sometimes 20x more than competitors) and forcing you to make long-term commitments in order to get the prices to somewhere more reasonable. Then they make it exorbitantly expensive to migrate your data anywhere else. It’s a very customer-hostile approach that I’m tired of at this point.
Amazon might think that they’re locking people in with the egress fees. But they’re also locking people out. As soon as you switch one part to a competitor, the high egress forces you to switch over everything.
It’s going to be complicated to switch, but it’s made easier by the fact that I didn’t fall into the trap of building my platform on Amazon-specific services.
This used to be true, but GCP forced their hand in January of 2024 with https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/networking/eliminatin...
AWS matched a few months later:
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/free-data-transfer-out-to-i...
I'm not trying to convince you to stay (I work for neither anymore!), just wanted to note that you can technically request a waiver. I'm not sure how this works in practice though. Like, if you want to leave Athena and move to something on-premise is that enough to have just that workload? Maybe!
Edit: I also didn't follow this at the time, but the AWS wording suggests that the "EU Data Act" is also involved.
AWS DTO is a complete lie.
This doesn't actually work as advertised. I attempted free data egress from AWS in December. It took them 31 days to respond to my initial ticket. At which point they gave me a multi-page questionnaire to determine eligibility and they also told me I could not begin DTO until 60 days had passed from approval of the questionnaire.
By the time I was allowed "free egress" my cumulative S3 storage charges over the prior 100 days would have roughly matched the cost of egress if I just did so originally.
I'm in the US so the EU Data Act protections don't apply.
Have you tried to use the DTO? I did. They make you fill in a form saying you'll migrate all services (despite the blog post saying that isn't necessary), and then they take up to 12 weeks to make a decision. In my case they rejected it on a formality after 2 weeks and said to try again (the timer starts again).
So in my case that would have been 14 weeks plus the time to migrate away. The egress costs are equivalent to around 17 weeks storage cost. So you save around 1c/gb if they don't find some reason to reject it.
I have been using hetzer for a few years now. I realized I just need a Linux VM and snapshots. It is so freeing to not have to deal with big tech's VMs and their cumbersome and soul-sucking steps and documentation.
Every time I see this kind of article, no one really bothers about sb/server redundancy, load balancers, etc. are we ok with just 1 big server that may fail and bring several services down?
You saved a lot of money but you'll spend a lot of time in maintenance and future headaches.
It depends on the service and how critical that website is.
Sometimes it's completely acceptable that a server will run for 10 years with say 1 week or 1 month of downtime spread over those 10 years, yes. That's the sort of uptime you can see with single servers that are rarely changed and over-provisioned as many on Hetzner are. Some examples:
Small businesses where the website is not core to operations and is more of a shop-front or brochure for their business.
Hobby websites too don't really matter if they go down for short periods of time occasionally.
Many forums and blogs just aren't very important too and downtime is no big deal.
There are a lot of these websites, and they are at the lower end of the market for obvious reasons, but probably the majority of websites in fact, the long tail of low-traffic websites.
Not everything has to be high availability and if you do want that, these providers usually provide load balancers etc too. I think people forget here sometimes that there is a huge range in hosting from squarespace to cheap shared hosting to more expensive self-hosted and provisioned clouds like AWS.
What struck me though is that OP did so much work to migrare the server with zero downtime. The _single_ big server. Something’s off here.
Well why have downtime if you can avoid it with a bit of work?
But I do agree the poster should think about this. I don't think it's 'off' or misleading, they just haven't encountered a hardware error before. If they had one on this single box with 30 databases and 34 Nginx sites it would probably be a bad time, and yes they should think about that a bit more perhaps.
They describe a db follower for cutover for example but could also have one for backups, plus rolling backups offsite somewhere (perhaps they do and it just didn't make it into this article). That would reduce risk a lot. Then of course they could put all the servers on several boxes behind a load-balancer.
But perhaps if the services aren't really critical it's not worth spending money on that, depends partly what these services/apps are.
Besides, "Migrated 34 websites in one go with zero downtime" looks good on a resume, and is actually a useful skill.
I run internal services on DO that I've considered moving to Hetzner for cost savings.
Could I take it down for the afternoon? Sure. Or could I wait and do it after hours? Also sure. But would I rather not have to deal with complaints from users that day and still go home by 5pm? Of course!
to be fair a lot of ppl still run this way and just have really good backups, or have an offline / truly on-prep server where they can flip the dns switch in case of true outage.
Yes and for many services that is totally fine. As long as you have backups of data and can redeploy easily. It's not how I personally do things usually but there is definitely a place for it.
Good point. I run single big servers. But I can bring them down every weekend for the entire weekend if I need to.
There is software that can help a lot.
Also, in general, you can architect your application to be more friendly to migration. It used to be a normal thing to think about and plan for.
VMware has a conversion tool that converts bare metal into images.
One could image, then do regular snapshots, maybe centralize a database being accessed.
Sometimes it's possible to create a migration script that you run over and over to the new environment for each additional step.
Others can put a backup server in between to not put a load on the drive.
Digital Ocean makes it impossible to download your disk image backups which is a grave sin they can never be forgiven for. They used to have some amount of it.
Still, a few commands can back up the running server to an image, and stream it remotely to another server, which in turn can be updated to become bootable.
This is the tip of the iceberg in the number of tasks that can be done.
Someone with experience can even instruct LLMs to do it and build it, and someone skilled with LLMs could probably work to uncover the steps and strategies for their particular use case.
A week of downtime every decade I think still works out to a higher uptime than I've been getting from parts of GitHub lately. So I'd consider that a win.
Respectfully, this type of "high availability" strawman is a dated take.
This is a general response to it.
I have run hosting on bare metal for millions of users a day. Tens of thousdands of concurrent connections. It can scale way up by doing the same thing you do in a cloud, provision more resources.
For "downtime" you do the same thing with metal, as you do with digital ocean, just get a second server and have them failover.
You can run hypervisors to split and manage a metal server just like Digital Ocean. Except you're not vulnerable to shared memory and cpu exploits on shared hosting like Digital Ocean. When Intel CPU or memory flaws or kernel exploits come out like they have, one VM user can read the memory and data of all the other processes belonging to other users.
Both Digital Ocean, and IaaS/PaaS are still running similar linux technologies to do the failover. There are tools that even handle it automatically, like Proxmox. This level of production grade fail over and simplicity was point and click, 10 years ago. Except no one's kept up with it.
The cloud is convenient. Convenience can make anyone comfortable. Comfort always costs way more.
It's relatively trivial to put the same web app on a metal server, with a hypervisor/IaaS/Paas behind the same Cloudflare to access "scale".
Digital Ocean and Cloud providers run on metal servers just like Hetzner.
The software to manage it all is becoming more and more trivial.
While I generally agree, this is an exaggeration:
> This level of production grade fail over and simplicity was point and click, 10 years ago.
While some of the tools are _designed_ for point and click, they don't always work. Mostly because of bugs.
We run Ceph clusters under our product, and have seen a fair share of non-recoveries after temporary connection loss [1], kernel crashes [2], performance degradations on many small files, and so on.
Similarly, we run HA postgres (Stolon), and found bugs in its Go error checking cause failure to recover from crashes and full-disk conditions [3] [4]. This week, we found that full-disk situations will not necessarily trigger failovers. We also found that if DB connections are exhausted, the dameon that's supposed to trigger postgres failover cannot connect to do that (currently testing the fix).
I believe that most of these things will be more figured out with hosted cloud solutions.
I agree that self-hosting HA with open-source software is the way to. These softwares are good, and the more people use them, the less bugs they will have.
But I wouldn't call it "trivial".
If you have large data, it is also brutally cheaper; we could hire 10 full-time sysadmins for the cost of hosting on AWS, vs doing our own Hetzner HA with Free Software, and we only need ~0.2 sysadmins. And it still has higher uptime than AWS.
It is true that Proxomox is easy to setup and operate. For many people it will probably work well for a long time. But when things aren't working, it's not so easy anymore.
[1]: "Ceph does not recover from 5 minute network outage because OSDs exit with code 0" - https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/73136
[2]: "Kernel null pointer derefecence during kernel mount fsync on Linux 5.15" - https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/53819
[3]: https://github.com/sorintlab/stolon/issues/359#issuecomment-...
[4]: https://github.com/sorintlab/stolon/issues/247
I'm not arguing for cloud or against bare metal hosting, just saying there is a broad range of requirements in hosting and not everyone needs or wants load balancers etc - it clearly will cost more than this particular poster wants to pay as they want to pay the bare minimum to host quite a large setup.
I feel like 95% of the web falls into this category. Like, have you ever said "That's it, I am never gonna visit this page again!", because of temporary downtime? Unless you are Amazon and every minute costs you bazillions, you are likely gonna get the better deal not worrying about availability and scalability. That 250€/m root server is a behemoth. Complete overkill for most anything. As a bonus, you are gonna be half the internet, when someone at AWS or Cloudflare touches DNS.
Exactly. I've never not bought something because the website was temporarily down. I've even bought from b&h photo!
Even if Amazon was down, if I was planning to buy, I'd wait. heck, I got a bunch of crap in my cart right now I haven't finished out.
Intentional downtime lets everyone plan around it, reduces costs by not needing N layers of marginal utility which are all fragile and prone to weird failures at times you don't intend.
For me at least, the only thing where availability really matters is main personal communication services. If Signal was down for an hour, I'd be a little stressed. Maybe utilities like public transportation, too, but that's because I now have to do that online.
> Intentional downtime lets everyone plan around it, reduces costs by not needing N layers of marginal utility which are all fragile and prone to weird failures at times you don't intend.
Quite frankly, I would manage if things were run "on-supply" with solar and would just go dark at night.
> Like, have you ever said "That's it, I am never gonna visit this page again!", because of temporary downtime?
That's a strawman version of what happens.
There have been times when I've tried to visit a webshop to buy something but the site was broken or down, so I gave up and went to Amazon and bought an alternative.
I've also experienced multiple business situations where one of our services went down at an inconvenient time, a VP or CEO got upset, and they mandated that we migrate away from that service even if alternatives cost more.
If you think of your customers or visitors as perfectly loyal with infinite patience then downtime is not a problem.
> Unless you are Amazon and every minute costs you bazillions, you are likely gonna get the better deal not worrying about availability and scalability. That 250€/m root server is a behemoth. Complete overkill for most anything.
You don't need every minute of downtime to cost "bazillions" to justify a little redundancy. If you're spending 250 euros/month on a server, spending a little more to get a load balancer and a pair of servers isn't going to change your spend materially. Having two medium size servers behind a load balancer isn't usually much more expensive than having one oversized server handling it all.
There are additional benefits to having the load balancer set up for future migrations, or to scale up if you get an unexpected traffic spike. If you get a big traffic spike on a single server and it goes over capacity you're stuck. If you have a load balancer and a pair of servers you can easily start a 3rd or 4th to take the extra traffic.
> There have been times when I've tried to visit a webshop to buy something but the site was broken or down, so I gave up and went to Amazon and bought an alternative.
Great. So how much did the webshop lose in that hour of maintenance (which realistically would be in the middle of the night for their main audience) and how much would they have paid for redundancy? Also a bit hard to believe you repeatedly ran into the situation of an item sold at a self-hosted webshop and Amazon alike. Are you sure they haven't just messed up the web dev biz? You could totally do that with AWS too...
> If you're spending 250 euros/month on a server, spending a little more to get a load balancer and a pair of servers isn't going to change your spend materially.
Of course, but that's not the argument. It's implied you can just double the 250€/m server for redundancy, as you would still get an offer at the fraction of cloud prices. But really that server needs no more optimization in terms of hardware diversification. As I said, it's complete overkill. Blogs and forums could easily be run on a 30€/m recycled machine.
> Like, have you ever said "That's it, I am never gonna visit this page again!"
Spot on! People still go to Chick-fil-A, even if they are closed on Sundays!
These articles are popular where there's a mismatch between application requirements and the solution chosen. When someone over-engineers their architecture to be enterprise-grade (substitute your own definition of enterprise-grade) when really they were running a hobby project or a small business where a day of downtime every once in a while just means your customers will come back the next day, going all-out on cloud architecture is maybe not necessary. That's why you see so many comments from people arguing that downtime isn't always a big deal or that risking an outage is fine: There are a lot of applications where this is kind of true.
The confusing part about this article is the emphasis on a zero-downtime migration toward a service that isn't really ideal for uptime. It wouldn't be that expensive to add a little bit of architecture on the Hetzner side to help with this. I guess if you're doing a migration and you're paid salary or your time is free-ish, doing the migration in a zero downtime way is smart. It's a little funny to see the emphasis on zero downtime juxtaposed to the architecture they chose where uptime depends on nothing ever failing
Downtime is a strawman.
Clever architecture will always beat cleverly trying to pick only one cloud.
Being cloud agnostic is best.
This means setting up a private cloud.
Hosted servers, and managed servers are perfectly capable of near zero downtime. this is because it's the same equipment (or often more consumer grade) that the "cloud" works on and plans for even more failure.
Digital Ocean definitely does not guarantee zero downtime. That's a lot of 9's.
It's simple to run well established tools like Proxmox on bare metal that will do everything Digital Ocean promises, and it's not susceptible to attacks, or exploits where the shared memory and CPU usage will leak what customers believe is their private VPS.
Nothing ever failing in the case of a tool like Proxmox is, install it on two servers, one VPS exists on both nodes (you connect both servers as nodes), click high availability, and it's generally up and running. Put cloudflare in front of it like the best preference practices of today.
If you're curious about this, there's some pretty eye opening and short videos on Proxmox available on Youtube that are hard to unsee.
Sadly, hardware breaks. You still need a working backup and a working failover plan, even if it's just setting up a new server and running your Terraform / Pulumi / Saltstack scripts.
I'm not sure if you read my post.
When you have 2 nodes running, both are mirrored and running, one can have hardware break.
Also, hardware can provide failure notifications before it breaks, and experience teaches to just update and upgrade before hard drives break.
Since tools like proxmox just add a node, you add new hardware, mark the VM for that node to mirror, and it is taken care of.
Terraform etc can sit below Proxmox and alleviate what you're speaking about:
Some examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvyeoDBUtsU
Indeed, I missed the "two servers" part; a two-node mirrored config is what I suggested myself elsewhere in the thread. It's still much less expensive than anything comparable in the cloud.
A lot of things don't need that.
Also, don't underestimate the reliability of simplicity.
I was a Linux sysadmin for many years, and I have never seen as much downtime from simpler systems as I routinely see from the more complicated setups. Somewhere between theory and reality, simpler systems just comes out ahead most of the time.
To be fair they were using a single VM on DigitalOcean, so they didn't had the perks of a cloud provider, except maybe the fact that a VM is probably more fault-tolerant than a bare metal server.
Usually those articles describe two situations:
Here they appear to be in the first situation. If their setup was running fine on DO and they put the right DR policies in place at Hetzner, they should be fine.They may be making this decision based on a long history of, in fact, never really having run into "a lot of time in maintenance and future headaches".
To be fair, I migrated a VPS from Linode to Hetzner a few years ago. Minor downtime is a non-issue: personal website and email server. I approximately halved the monthly cost, and I haven't had any downtime except what I caused myself when rebooting to upgrade the kernel every now and then.
As a bonus, Hetzner is European.
In 20 years of hosting all kinds of web services, some of them serving over 200m requests per month, a crashing single server was twice a problem.
Dealing with over engineered bullshit, that behaved in strange ways that disrupted the service was far more often a problem.
So, yes, redundancy is something that can be left away, if you're comfortable to be responsible for fixing things at a Saturday morning.
People also tend underestimate how much compute these dedicated servers got, compared to cloud offerings, and what that feels like without 100 layers of management abstraction in-between. You are likely not going to ever choke a plenty-cored, funny-RAMed root server at a fraction of your cloud costs. This overkill resource estate can be the answer to a lot of scalability worries. It's always there, no sharing shit all.
They already were on "1 big server" (a single VPS at digital ocean) and moved to another "1 big server" (a managed server at hertzner).
They saved money and lost nothing.
Now, if they so wish, they could use a portion of that to increase redundancy - but that wasn't the point of the article.
I don't know about Hetzner but with Upcloud and Vultr my single VPS setups have been more reliable than multiregion with redundancy setups with other providers like Fly.
A few weeks ago, I tested deploying Rails apps to Hetzner and Vultr for the first time using Hatchbox to deploy Rails apps onto them. I'm still supporting clients on Heroku, but there are potential new projects in the coming months that I might deploy elsewhere. Render is decent in some cases, but you can get a lot of bang for your buck deploying on Vultr, and Hatchbox makes it easy to do, whether you have one instance or a cluster. Hatchbox also helps with putting multiple apps/domains on a single server, a concept I had to give up long ago on Heroku. I've thought about deploying to DO plenty of times over the years, but there was always Heroku, and if I had to find a new home for Rails 8, I think I'd skip it in favor of a more powerful Vultr server. Hatchbox can provision Postgres for you, but Vultr has managed Postgres which is appealing to me. Or if you're just using Sqlite with Rails 8, that's easy to do with Hatchbox but not on Render since Render has an ephemeral file system.
I was thinking the same. A managed database is just set and forget pretty much. I do NOT miss the old times where I had to monitor my email from routine security checkups hoping my database didn't get hacked by some script kiddie accompanied by blackmail over email.
What are you running on it is the only question which matters, obviously you dont want air traffic control to go down but some app… So what if it goes down? Backup is somewhere else if you even need it anyway. Github has uptime less than 90% according to this: https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/ . And the world keeps turning. Obviously we should strive for better, but also lets please not continue making this uptime fetish out of it, for vast majority of the apps it absolutely doesnt fucking matter.
DO doesn't do high availability droplets, and their migration policy is will try, if we detect poor health of server before it fails.
If someone starts thinking about redundancy and load balancers than DO's solution is rent a second similar sized droplet, and then add their load balancing service. If you do those things with Hetzner instead, you would still be spending less than you did with Digital Ocean.
Personally, what is keeping me on DO is that no single droplet I have is large enough to justify moving on its own, and I'm not prepared to deal with moving everything.
Downtime happens in all different contexts of life that a web site/service being knocked offline is soo far down the priority list for most people.
It’s amusing that the US government can shutdown for days/weeks/months over budget reasons and there’s no adult discussions that take place about fixing the cause. Yet the latest HN demo that 100 people will use need all 9’s reliability and hundreds of responses.
To be fair, modern dedicated servers at hetzner have two power units, and come with a redundand ssd/hdd raid-1 config. AFAIK both ssd and power unit having hotplug capability, so in case either fails they can be replaced with zero downtime.
Given the downtimes we saw in the past year(s) (AWS, Cloudflare, Azure - the later even down several times), I would argue moving to any of the big cloud providers give you not much of a better guarantee.
I myself am a Hetzner customer with a dedicated vServer, meaning it is a shared virtual server but with dedicated CPUs (read: still oversubscribed, but some performance guarantee) and had zero hardware-based downtime for years [0]. I would guess their vservers are on similar redundant hardware where the failing components can be hotswapped.
[0] = They once within the last 3 years sent me an email that they had to update a router that would affect network connectivity for the vServer, but the notification came weeks in advance and lasted about 15 minutes. No reboot/hardware failure on my vServer though.
If you have the setup within server fully scripted and automated (bash, pyinfra or ansible etc) and backups are in place then recovery isn't that hard. Downtime for sure maybe couple of hours for which you can point your DNS entries to a static page while you're restoring everything.
Not a bad tradeoff for 99.8% of shops out there.
I already made a comment here about testing Hatchbox. You point it to your servers and it can set up a cluster and load balancer with a few button clicks.
If you can restore from snapshot to a new instance on cloud provider having running second copy is waste of money.
I know people like FAANG LARPing. Not everyone has budget or need to run four nines with 24/7 and FAANG level traffic.
their original also run on single server ?
If you can tolerate few hours of downtime and some data rollback/loss, single server + robust backups can be viable strategy
I wondered the same! FWIW I'm currently migrating from managed postgres to self-managed on hetzner with [autobase](https://autobase.tech/). Though of course for high availability it requires more than one server.
I agree with you, even for the servers I am responsible for I always make decisions like putting db on supabase instead of local, hosting files on s3 with versioning/multi region etc. then of course come up with a backup and snapshot system.
What time in maintenance? Hetzner has been rock solid for me.
Tbh, my one server paperless deployment has a higher uptime then most services.
If your scaling need is not that high, you can get very far with a single server
Hetzner has cheap load balancers and VMs.
I had like... less than 10 minutes downtime on Hetzner in years (funny enough, that makes my personal containers more reliable than productionized AWS and GCP deployments with their constant partial outages). So perhaps all that complexity (beyond maybe a backup container) isn't really necessary for companies where a bit of downtime doesn't really affect revenue?
Like, I know Leetcode tells otherwise, but most companies really don't need full FAANG stack with 99.999% uptime. A day of outage in a few years isn't going affect bottom lines.
Second that I wrote the same in my comment somewhere above.
LARPing as a FAANG is waste of money and lots of companies doesn’t even need 3 nines let alone 5ve.
The vast majority of services are actually alright with a little downtime here and there. In exchange, maintenance is a lot simpler with less moving parts.
People underestimate how far you can go with one or two servers. In fact, what I have seen in ky career is many examples of services that should have been running on one or two servers and instead went for a hugely complex microserviced approach, all in on Cloud providers and crazy requirements of reliability for a scale that never would come.
Depends on the app and how long downtime would take.
Deploying a new docker instance or just restoring the app from a snapshot and restoring the latest db in most cases is enough.
This is something we've[0] done a number of times for customers coming from various cloud providers. In our case we move customers onto a multi-server (sometimes multi-AZ) deployment in Hetzner, using Kubernetes to distribute workloads across servers and provide HA. Kubernetes is likely a lot for a single node deployment such as the OP, but it makes a lot more sense as soon as multiple nodes are involved.
For backups we use both Velero and application-level backup for critical workloads (i.e. Postgres WAL backups for PITR). We also ensure all state is on at least two nodes for HA.
We also find bare metal to be a lot more performant in general. Compared to AWS we typically see service response times halve. It is not that virtualisation inherently has that much overhead, rather it is everything else. Eg, bare metal offers:
- Reduced disk latency (NVMe vs network block storage)
- Reduced network latency (we run dedicated fibre, so inter-az is about 1/10th the latency)
- Less cache contention, etc [1]
Anyway, if you want to chat about this sometime just ping me an email: adam@ company domain.
[0] https://lithus.eu
[1] I wrote more on this 6 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45615867
> We also find bare metal to be a lot more performant in general
I measured this several years back and never looked at virtual servers again. Since CPU time isn't reserved (like RAM is), the performance is abysmal compared to real hardware.
https://jan.rychter.com/enblog/cloud-server-cpu-performance-...
Moving around k8s deployments is really nice. Very little vendor lockin compared to many of the cloud things you can buy.
My entire stack is.. k8s, hosted Postgres, s3 type storage. I can always host my own Postgres. So really down to k8s and s3. I think hetzner has some kind of s3 storage but haven’t looked into, and I assume moving in 100 TB is a process….
>HA
High availability, in case anyone else was wondering.
> Anyway, if you want to chat about this sometime just ping me an email:
Your post was reasonable until the spam tagline.
Not cool.
Hard to read this article as it was written by Claude as a report after the migration that Claude did for you. If an llm helped you migrate and save this much money, kudos. But if you decide to write about it at least proof read it and remove redundant parts and llm storytelling.
It's so bad, I know no one reads the original post on here, but this one was painful
Yeah, well be careful of Hetzner, I used to love them but I just migrated away. They just shut all all of our VMs over a $36 billing dispute. (~30 VMs we were using for our CI/CD pipeline) We provided them evidence with records of the payment in totality from our bank, they refused to look at it / discuss the dispute, even when we were communicating urgently and just ultimately shut off all our access. We're on Scaleway now.
Their customer service is surprisingly hostile. I still use them tho since I'm using them for low stakes stuff
Hm. Hetzners billing stuff is highly automated - but they usually give you about a month to pay your bill if the credit card payment failed for some reason.
Have had some hiccups with payments not going through myself that ended up in server IPs being restricted but they were very helpful on the phone and service was restored in about 30 minutes after the call. Decidedly not ideal but has been easily manageable since.
The migration sharing is admirable and useful teaching, thank you!
I see the DigitalOcean vs Hetzner comparison as a tradeoff that we make in different domains all day long, similar to opening your DoorDash or UberEats instead of making your own dinner(and the cost ratio is similar too).
I work in all 3 major clouds, on-prem, the works. I still head to the DigitalOcean console for bits and pieces type work or proof of concept testing. Sometimes you just want to click a button and the server or bucket or whatever is ready and here's the access info and it has sane defaults and if I need backups or whatnot it's just a checkbox. Your time is worth money too.
Not sure if I understand what you’re trying to say, but Hetzner's Console works just like that too.
There are two interesting parts in the post.
One is about all the steps of zero downtime migration. It's widely applicable.
The other is the decision to replace a cloud instance with bare metal. It saves a lot in costs, but also the loss of fast failover and data backups is priced in.
If I were doing this, I would run a hot spare for an extra $200, and switched the primary every few days, to guarantee that both copies work well, and the switchover is easy. It would be a relatively low price for a massive reduction of the risk of a catastrophic failure.
The hot spare switchover idea is good. Another related idea: restore each from backup regularly.
> Sometimes you just want to click a button and the server or bucket or whatever is ready and here's the access info and it has sane defaults and if I need backups or whatnot it's just a checkbox. Your time is worth money too.
You're describing Hetzner Cloud, which has been like this for many years. At least 6.
Hetzner also offers Hetzner Cloud API, which allows us to not have to click any button and just have everything in IaC.
https://docs.hetzner.cloud/
Coolify on a Hetzner server is giving me the one click service experience
https://xkcd.com/2948/
Cute; I'd somehow missed ever seeing that one. The omitted con of electric engines (costs way more to build batteries than a gas tank so you're likely to have more expensive storage AND less of it) makes the XKCD joke miss. BUT... since there's probably something that Digital Ocean offers that Hetzner doesn't, that might actually be a very appropriate XKCD for the situation, precisely because there's a tradeoff the XKCD didn't mention. (I haven't used Hetzner so I don't know firsthand what the tradeoff is, but a quick search suggests Hetzner doesn't do Kubernetes so that might be the tradeoff for some people. Or it might be something else, everybody has their own situation).
i've my own flyio style deploy built, where i just use API of digital ocean to roll out my service
i hardly ever visit their website, everything from terminal.
A few months ago, I looked into AWS alternatives for my small SaaS side project. My main motivations were to save money and maybe support some EU cloud providers. At first, I planned to go with Hetzner and accepted that I would need to do a lot of things myself.
However, the dealbreaker for me was that Hetzner IPs have a bad reputation. At work, I learned that one of the managed AWS firewall rules blocks many (maybe all) of their IPs. I can’t even open a website hosted on a Hetzner IP from my work laptop because it’s blocked by some IT policy (maybe this is not an issue for you if you are using CloudFlare or similar).
I've read online that the DDoS protection is very bad as well.
So in the end, I picked DO App Platform in one of the EU regions. Having the option to use a managed DB was a big plus as well.
How convenient for Amazon to block a competitor this way :(
Not sure what firewall rules you're referring to, but I'm genuinely surprised to see DO being trusted more than Hetzner. I often see DO's ASN when looking at scrapers/hackers, so I'd say it's only a matter of time until they're blocked as well.
DO IPs are way worse.
source: moved away from DO for this very reason.
I wrote about this on a Tor thread.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47279518
It looks like Hetzner is Tor (and Tor adjacent) friendly, I suggested this might affect IP reputation, 2 users responded they had no IP reputation issues. But it looks like that wasn't quite the whole story
https://community.torproject.org/relay/community-resources/g...
It seems that Hetzner holds 7% of the Tor network. (if I understood the table right)
ironically, blocking aws and azure solved 99% of my bot problems. zero users affected.
so much that I'm thinking of selling nothing but an aws and azure blocker as a service.
I just want to point out this guide uses many of the same tasks I use when migrating websites between servers while minimizing downtown.
- reduce dns ttl (if not doing an ip swap)
- rsync website files
- rsync /etc/letsencrypt/ ssl certificates
- copy over database (if writes don't happen often and database is small enough, this can be done without replica, just go read_only during migration)
- test new server by putting new ip in local /etc/hosts
- turn off cron on old server
- convert old server nginx to reverse proxy to new server
- change dns (or ip swap between old and new server)
- turn on cron on new server
What are you doing for DB backups? Do you have a replica/standby? Or is it just hourly or something like that?
Because with a single-server setup like this, I'd imagine that hardware (e.g. SSD) failure brings down your app, and in the case of SSD failure, you then have hours or days downtime while you set everything up again.
Hetzner normally advertises their hardware servers as 2x 1 TB SSD, because it's strongly recommended to run them in SWraid1 for net 1TB. (Their image installer will default to that)
Once the first SSD fails after some years, and your monitoring catches that, you can either migrate to a new box, find another intermediate solution/replica, or let them hotswap it while the other drive takes on.
Of course though, going to physical servers loses redundency of the cloud, but that's something you need to price in when looking at the savings and deciding your risk model.
And yes, running this without also at least daily snapshotting/backup to remote storage is insane - that applies to cloud aswell, albeit easier to setup there.
Do not rely on raid alone.
Have 2x servers atleast then invest in proper monitoring.
Server can fail without disk failures.
For over a decade I ran a small scale dedicated and virtual hosting business (hundreds of machines) and the sort of setup you describe works very well. Software RAID across 2 devices, redundant power supplies, backups. We never had a significant data loss event that I recall (significant = beyond user accidentally removing files).
For quite a while we ran single power supplies because they were pretty high quality, but then Supermicro went through a ~6 month period where basically every power supply in machines we got during that time failed within a year, and replacements were hard to come by (because of high demand, because of failures), and we switched to redundant. This was all cost savings trade-offs. When running single power supplies, we had in-rack Auto Transfer Switches, so that the single power supplies could survive A or B side power failure.
But, and this is important, we were monitoring the systems for drive failures and replacing them within 24 hours. Ditto for power supplies. If you don't monitor your hardware for failure, redundancy doesn't mean anything.
It's possible no one will care much if it's down even for that long. I couldn't care less if my HOA mobile app was down even for a week for example. We don't need constant uptime for everything.
Don’t forget that integrity matters as much as availability in many applications. You might not mind if your HOA takes time to bring a server back up but you’d care a lot more if they lost the financial records or weren’t able to recover from a ransomware attack.
Hetzner provides backups for VPS and machines across all tiers, which are very easy to set up.
I agree with the overall sentiment, but having an HOA app go down around the time when dues need to be paid could be a serious issue.
> Because with a single-server setup like this, I'd imagine that hardware ...
Yeah. This blog post reads like it was written by someone who didn't think things through and just focused on hyper-agressive cost-cutting.
I bet their DigitalOcean vm did live migrations and supported snapshots.
You can get that at Hetzner but only in their cloud product.
You absolutely will not get that in Hetzner bare-metal. If your HD or other component dies, it dies. Hetzner will replace the HD, but its up to you to restore from scratch. Hetzner are very clear about this in multiple places.
For the price, they could buy an exact replica bare metal server and still save money.
> they could
They could, but they didn't and instead they wrote that blog post which, even being generous is still kinda hard to avoid describing as misleading.
I would not have written the post I did if they had presented a multi-node bare-metal cluster or whatever more realistic config.
> They could, but they didn't and instead they wrote that blog post which, even being generous is still kinda hard to avoid describing as misleading.
What do you feel was misleading?
That they get the exact same level of service for $1,199 less per month.
They don't.
And reading the article, they don't seem to understand that.
> What do you feel was misleading?
Erm. I already spelt it out in my original post ?
I'm not going to re-write it, the TL;DR is they are making an Apples and Oranges comparison.
Yes they "saved money" but in no way, shape or form are the two comparable.
The polite way to put is is .... they saved as much money as they did because they made very heavy handed "architectural decisions". "Decisions" that they appear to be unaware of having made.
They could but then that exchanges cost savings for complexity. You now need to keep them in sync and it is double the cost.
I agree with the other poster, this is fine for a toy site or sites but low quality manual DR isn't good for production.
Surely you must've noticed that pretty much all of their bare metal offerings ("dedicated" and the stuff on "auction") have multiple disks, allowing for various RAID configurations?
> Surely you must've noticed that pretty much all of their bare metal offerings ("dedicated" and the stuff on "auction") have multiple disks, allowing for various RAID configurations?
I don't know where to start with this comment. Do I really need to spell out the difference between cloud and bare metal ?
A few examples...
You can get snapshots and live migrations working on-prem. The cloud isn't magic, it's just servers with hypervisors and software running on top of them. You can run that same software.
Also, with something like Hetzner you would not be going in and physically doing anything. You also just tick a box for a RAM upgrade, and then migrate over or do active/passive switch.
The cloud does have advantages, mostly in how "easy" it is to do some specific workflows, but per-compute it's at least 10x the cost. Some will argue it's less than that, but they forget to factor in just how slow virtual disks and CPU are. Cloud only makes sense for very small businesses, in which the operational cost of colocation or on-prem hosting is too expensive.
Well you did say your data is lost when a disk fails, which is not true. Parent pointed out that for you.
Yeah you pay for and get additional stuff with cloud. Nobody disputed that.
> Well you did say your data is lost when a disk fails, which is not true.
Well, technically its still a possibility.
I am old enough to have seen issues with RAID1 setups not being able to restore redundancy, as well as RAID controller failures and software RAID failures.
Also, frankly you are being somewhat pedantic. My broader point was regarding cloud. I gave HD Failure as one example, randomly selected by my brain ... I could have equally randomly chosen any of the other items ... but this time, my brain chose HD.
You can just run 3 dedicated servers and design your app so that it never fails.
Can you elaborate? I'm coming up with similar designs recently (static site plus redundant servers) but my designs so far assume no database and ephemeral interactions. (Realtime multiplayer arcade games.)
Curious what the delta to pain-in-ass would be if I want to deal with storing data. (And not just backups / migrations, but also GDPR, age verification etc.)
database isn't hard to have HA with, it's actually very easy to do any of this.
i already design with Auto Scale Group in mind, we run it in spot instance which tend to be much cheaper. Spot instances can be reclaimed anytime, so you need to keep this is kind.
I also have data blobs which are memory maped files, which are swapped with no downtime by pulling manifest from GCS bucket each hour, and swapping out the mmaped data.
i use replicas, with automatic voting based failover.
I've used mongo with replication and automative failover for a decade in production with no downtime, no data lost.
Recently, got into postgres, so far so good. Before that i always used RDS or other managed solution like Datastore, but they cost soo much compared to running your own stuff.
Healthchecks start new server in no time, even if my Hertzner server goes out or if whole Hertzer goes out, my system will launch digital ocean nodes which will start soaking up all requests.
The easiest I’ve done is in MongoDB replication, sharding, failover, and all that is super easy.
Recently, I did it in PostgreSQL using pg_auto_failover. I have 1 monitor node, 1 primary, and 1 replica.
Surprisingly, once you get the hang of PostgreSQL configuration and its gotchas, it’s also very easy to replicate.
I’m guessing MySQL is even easier than PostgreSQL for this.
I also achieved zero downtime migration.
Replication is not a backup. It helps for migrations or clean single node failures but not human error, corruption, or an attack.
If that's the tradeoff they're willing to make, who are you to say that they're doing it wrong?
Not every app needs 24/7 availability. The vast majority of websites out there will not suffer any serious consequences from a few hours of downtime (scheduled or otherwise) every now and then. If the cost savings outweigh the risk, it can be a perfectly reasonable business decision.
A more interesting question would be what kind of backup and recovery strategy they have, and which aspects of it (if any) they had to change when they moved to Hetzner.
AWS only requires a card from me. I tried registering at Hetzner and they wanted a picture of my passport.
That's a trend which is more and more common nowadays.
I wish the industry would adopt more zero knowledge methods in this regards. They are existing and mathematically proven but it seems there is no real adoption.
- OpenAI wants my passport when topping up 100 USD
- Bolt wanted recently my passport number to use their service
- Anthropic seems wants to have passports for new users too
- Soon age restriction in OS or on websites
I wished there would be a law (in Europe and/or US) to minify or forbid this kind of identity verification.
I want to support the companies to not allow misuse of their platforms, at the same time my full passport photo is not their concern, especially in B2B business in my opinion.
It used to be "innocent until proven/suspected guilty." Now it's more like "let's see that ID, you know, just in case..."
I'm not a legal expert/lawyer but I do think a lot of this is not the company just randomly wanting to do it, but lawyer driven development. No company wants to introduce more friction for no reason, unless somehow there's precedent or risk involved in not doing it. Curious to know what legal precedents or laws have changed recently.
The only possible non legally driven reason I can think of would be if they think the tradeoff of extra friction (and lost customers) is more than offset by fraud protection efforts. This seems unlikely cause I don't see how that math could have changed in the last few years.
It's partially because the internet only grants us free storage (noun), not free compute (verb).
Which is fundamental to so many XY problems, including why cloud services are so byzantine instead of just providing isolated secure shells with full root access within them. And why distrust is a growing force in the world instead of, say, unconditional love.
I always dreamed of winning the internet lottery so that I could help dismantle the systems of control which currently dominate our lives. Which starts with challenging paradigms from first principles. That looks like asking why we only have multicore computing in the cloud and not on our desktops (which could be used to build our own cloud servers).
When we're missing an abstraction layer, that creates injustice and a power drain from the many to the few. Some examples:
- CPU -> multicore MIMD (missing) -> GPU (based on the subset SIMD instead of MIMD upon which graphics libraries could be built)
- UDP -> connectionless reliable stream (missing) -> TCP (should have been a layer above UDB not beside it)
- UDP/TCP -> P2P (NAT and other limitations block this and were inherited by IPv6 as generational trauma) -> WebRTC (redundant if we had P2P that "just works")
- internet connection -> symmetric upload/download speed (blocked for legal reasons under the guise of overselling to reduce cost) -> self-hosted web servers (rare due to antitrust issues stemming from said legal reasons)
- internet connection -> multicast (missing due to suppression of content-addressable-memory/hash-tree/DHT/) -> self-hosted streaming (negates the need for regions and edge caching)
I had high hopes for Google and even Tesla (for disrupting the physical world). But instead of open standards, they gave us proprietary vendor lock-in: Google Workspace (formerly G Suite) and NACS instead of J1772 (better yet both). Because of their refusal to interoperate at the lowest levels, there is little hope that they will do the real work of solving the hard problems at the highest levels.
For example, I just heard that China has built thousands of battery swap stations to provide effectively instant charging for electric vehicles, whereas that's something that Tesla can't accomplish because they chose to build Supercharger stations instead.
Once we begin to see the world this way, it's impossible to unsee it. It calls into question the fundamentals (like scarcity) which capitalism is based upon, and even the concept of profit itself.
From a spiritual perspective, I believe that this understanding is what blocks me from using my talents to use the system for personal gain to win the internet lottery. The people who own the systems of control don't have this understanding, and even view its basis in empathy as a liability. So we sacrifice the good of the many for the good of the few and call that progress.
I dont. I'm happy the grift economy has some controls on it. As much as I love open source and all the efforts in collective without government interference; some security is required, otherwise we'll just invite more grift based economics.
It's bad enough living in America without the rest of the world adopting the grift economy.
Im in DO and tried to open an account in Heztner. It wont accept my Visa card (which is use to pay DO). So no business from me.
That's nuts. Why do they want a pic of your passport.
Absolutely no to this - reason enough to go with AWS or alternatives. And why are ppl willingly giving it to hosting providers?
Unnecessarily exposing yourself to identity theft if they get compromised.
They have to operate within the laws of the countries they’re physically located in. Those countries want to know that they’re not hosting illegal content, providing services to crime rings, Russia or North Korea, etc.
If Hetzner allows you to host something and you use it for illegal acts, they aren’t going to jail to shield you for €10/month.
Hosting companies managed to shutdown illegal sites without requiring you to submit your pics and passport first.
And if someone wants to do illegal things, what's stopping them from submitting a fake ID?
You buy your fake ids at the grocery store?
No, but my local AKO newsagent does have them. Don't have a need for them though.
In my case, I submitted my drivers license, the real one, that matched other information I submitted.
They still decided my information was fake and terminated my account.
I'm never going to do business with them again.
Hetzner is like 1/10th the cost of ripoffs like AWS now, the passport data is deleted after verification and I can actually trust this claim coming from an EU company under GDPR that doesn't have any use for my personal data. You can also just bypass the passport requirement entirely by making a €20 Paypal deposit to the account.
You just hear too many horror stories of data being leaked. Even if Hetzner uses a 3rd party system to do the verification - that 3rd party probably has to store your pics for some time.
But at least if there is an alternative then great.
Never had to do this. Sounds like they were flagged as a high risk customer and that’s why.
I signed up for Hetzner a few weeks ago and didn't have to provide any ID. I pay by credit card.
Not sure what differs in our cases, I'm based in EU.
Do they always do this? I never had to present my passport as far as i can remember.
They do not. I've never had to present any documentation whatsoever to Hetzner and have been a happy customer for many years.
As I understand it, they ask only from accounts that check several boxes for common cases of abuse. So basically, personal accounts (as opposed to business accounts) from poor countries (by per capita, so e.g. India qualifies as poor).
I signed up yesterday and didn't have to provide anything.
i don't do anything bad and my passport isn't exactly any secret, i gladly submit it too Hetzner.
I saved about $1200 a year by moving from AWS to Hetzner. Can’t recommend it enough. AWS has kind of become a scam.
That’s like saying Mercedes is a scam because you’re fine with a Honda Civic. It’s a totally legitimate preference but not being in the target market doesn’t make something a scam.
AWS ain't no Mercedes. Mercedes feels premium and isn't full of bugs.
AWS and Azure a charging an arm and a leg, but the offered quality is mostly perceived. Most of the bits and bobs they charge for are not providing much value for a vast majority of businesses. I won't even go over the complete lack of ergonomics with their portals.
I see you have strong emotions about this but really my point was simply that AWS customers are paying for things they value which you do not. It’s fine for you not to share their priorities but any time people are paying billions of dollars for something in a competitive market, it’s a mistake to say they’re all fools or being fooled.
mercedes and honda interior almost indistinguishable now
and mercedes is just like aws in dumb charges. new tires, EUR1000+ for set. replace car keys? EUR1000+
>Mercedes feels premium and isn't full of bugs
Maaan, I have some bad news for you...
> Mercedes feels premium and isn't full of bugs.
I see you've never actually owned or worked on a German car, especially in relation to even modest Japanese models. Maybe they were a little nicer inside in the 80s and maybe 90s, but "German car" and frankly "European make" is basically synonymous with "big expensive pile of shit that's an expensive pain in the ass when things start falling apart (which they seem to with increasing rapidity)." It's like the disease that plagued British cars for the longest time got contaminated with the German propensity to build overly complex monstrosities.
Scam? You mostly get what you pay for.
Sure, it cost me £6/mo to serve ONE lambda on AWS (and perhaps 500 requests per month). Sure it was awesome and "proper". But crazy expensive.
I host it now (and 5 similar things) for free on Cloudflare.
But if you need what AWS provides, you'll get that. And that means sometimes it's not the most cost-effective place.
On the other hand, we have dozens production workloads on Lambda handling thousands of requests daily and we spend like $50/mo on Lambda.
I'm really intrigued by what you did to get to those figures!
The pricing was always like that. You pay premium for availability of the big spread of cloud services
Hetzner Cloud or their VPS offerings?
Anything worse about the service?
Each has their trade offs. AWS absolutely has a high premium but Hetzner has some quirks.
Recently we had several of our VMs offline because they apparently have these large volume storage pools they were upgrading and suddenly disks died in two large pools. It took them 3 days to resolve.
Hetzner has no integrated option to backup volumes and its roll your own :/ You also can't control volume distribution on their storage nodes for redundancy.
it's not scam, it's like Casino House. Everything is designed to pull your money and make you believe that you are benefiting from it.
Your thesis is that everyone who uses AWS is being duped...?
No, they just don't know what value AWS provides. And honestly you'll never know until you roll out your own Dedicated servers and later you'll wonder why you never did it sooner.
Probably most are overpaying.
Cloud used to be marketed for scalability. "Netflix can scale up when people are watching, and scale down at night".
Then the blogosphere and astroturfing got everyone else on board. How can $5 on amazon get you less than what you got from almost any VPS (VDS) provider 10 years ago?
I don't think it's fair to call AWS a scam. It's complicated and powerful and it charges a lot for many services compared to a DIY approach. But you can see the prices transparently on its site, it provides a free tier to try most services out, it is fairly good about long term support for services and how it handles forced upgrades when they become necessary, and generally it has an OK reputation for customer support even if something unexpected and very bad happens. You're certainly paying a price for the convenience and the brand but I don't think that's a scam if you're making an informed choice. If you want to save money then you can replace RDS with Postgres running on VMs but the trade off is then you have to manage your database infrastructure yourself.
AWS has always been a scam.
It's worse than Oracle and they don't even use lawyery contracts.
The technology itself is the tendrils.
Hey I made the meme in the header https://wasp.sh/blog/2025/04/02/an-introduction-to-database-...
Nice to see it used _twice_ :D
In the big corporate world, this would be a $600m budget, creating multiple VPs, thousands of positions, multi-cloud and multi-dc kubernetes, tons of highly paid consultants, the migration would take 9 - 12 years, create so many success stories, lessons learnt, promotions, etc etc.
I have experience in migrating large DBs with replication and the article not discussing write blocks made my ears perk up as well.
Aside from the blocking you mentioned during the initial snapshot, you'd need to block writes to the old DB before the cutover as well. There's no way to guarantee in-flight writes to the old DB aren't lost when promoting the replica to a primary otherwise. I'm surprised the author didn't go into more detail here. Maybe it was fine given their workload, but the key issue I see is that they promoted the new DB to a primary before stopping the old application. During that gap, any data written to the old DB would be lost.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but done with a proxy in-between that can "pause" requests, you could have done the move with 0 seconds and no rejected requests, and I don't think mydumper/myloader/xtrabackup matters for that. The "migration" would be spinning up a new database, making it catch up, then switching over. If you can pause/hang in-flight requests while switching, not a single one needs to fail :)
The "making it catch up" is the tricky part. You need an initial backup for that. xtrabackup can take that backup "hot" without blocking read/writes. mysqldumper will block writes for whatever time that initial backup takes, for 2TB of data that's going to be hours.
Once you have that initial back up you can set your replica and make it catch up , then you switch. I choose to take the few seconds of downtime doing the switch because for my use case that was acceptable.
Isn't that just a flag? "--lock-tables=false", alternatively --single-transaction for InnoDB.
If you want a consistent backup that you can use to setup a replica you need to block writes while the backup is taken, take the backup while the database is shutdown OR use xtrabackup.
Really interesting sharing, thanks! Why lower the TTL to 300 instead of something like 60 or 30, to make the switch even faster? The nameservers were DO's, so they should've been more than able to handle the increased load.
BTW, I've been a client of Hetzner (Cloud, Object Storage, and Storage Box) for a few years now, very happy with them!
I know they've been bought out by Akamai or whatever but I've been using Linode for over 10 years and I still go to them if I need a VPS. I don't have extreme needs, but they seem to be always improving or adding features comparable to other providers and the UI is consistent so I don't see a reason to change. Any time there has been an issue they've migrated me to a new host automatically without even needing to do anything. I combine it with Dokploy now and just deploy most of my projects via Docker Compose and private GitHub repos.
I've had excellent experiences with Percona xtrabackup for MySQL migration and backups in general. It runs live with almost no performance penalty on the source. It works so well that I always wait for them to release a new matching version before upgrade to a new MySQL version.
Might give this a whirl, not move business infrastructure here, but see how it works for my personal VPN server.
I set up a VM on Hetzner a few weeks ago. I've been quite impressed so far, and was able to orchestrate everything with Terraform without a problem.
> The key: proxy_ssl_verify off — the new server’s SSL cert is valid for the domain, not for the IP address. Disabling verification here is fine because we control both ends.
Not really, a MITM could do anything here. It's not very likely to happen here, but I think this comment shows a misunderstanding of what certificates and verification does.
What's the HA plan?
Sounds like from the requirement to live migrate you can't really afford planned downtime, so why are you risking unplanned downtime?
The "where's the HA?" comments are missing that this was a single DO droplet before. The migration didn't reduce redundancy, it just moved the single point of failure from one provider to another for 1/6 the cost. The HA conversation is worth having, but it's a separate conversation from this migration.
>Skyrocketing inflation and a dramatically weakening Turkish Lira against the US dollar
This reasoning does not add up. They could simply say they needed to move somewhere cheaper, like Hetzner. Inflation is still high but getting lower. Weakened Turkish Lira part is not correct because dollar is artificially suppressed for a very long time.
They're great but I wish Hetzner had a US (or CA) east coast presence, the latency of going across the ocean is really troublesome. They have some presence for their cloud offering, so they at least have some experience with the idea.
Has Hetzner discontinued their US data center?
I had my fair share of Hyperscaler -> $something_else migrations during the past year. I agree, especially with rented hardware the price-difference is kind of ridiculous.
The issue is though, that you loose the managed part of the whole Cloud promise. For ephemeral services this not a big deal, but for persistent stuff like databases where you would like to have your data safe this is kind of an issue because it shifts additional effort (and therefore cost) into your operations team.
For smaller setups (attention shameless self-promotion incoming) I am currently working on https://pellepelster.github.io/solidblocks/cloud/index.html which allows to deploy managed services to the Hetzner Cloud from a Docker-Compose like definition. E.g. a PostgreSQL database with automatic backup and disaster recovery.
I wish we had something like Hetzner dedicated near us-east-1.
They do offer VPS in the US and the value is great. I was seriously looking at moving our academic lab over from AWS but server availability was bad enough to scare me off. They didn't have the instances we needed reliably. Really hoping that calms down.
Try OVH Canada they have good prices and service
Depending upon the nature of the data, they may need to keep it within the US.
Hetzner oversells hardware which means your neighbors are a drag on your performance. If your server is mostly idle, this might be a good move. If not, it probably won't be worth it.
It will still outpeform VPS of similar specs.
Hetzner cannot outsell your CPU or SSD
VMs on cloud can.
> Old server nginx converted to reverse proxy We wrote a Python script that parsed every server {} block across all 34 Nginx site configs, backed up the originals, and replaced them with proxy configurations pointing to the new server. This meant that during DNS propagation, any request still hitting the old IP was silently forwarded. No user would see a disruption.
What was the config on the receiving side to support this? Did you whitelist the old server IP to trust the forwarding headers? Otherwise you’d get the old server IP in your app logs. Not a huge deal for an hour but if something went wrong it can get confusing.
When you find a gold, why tell everyone where it is? Silent happiness keeps the benefits:)
Ever heard of economies of scale?
Congrats on doing this successfully, but your setup is amateur. This would have been infinitely easier if you were using IaC (Terraform/Ansible), containerized applications (that you're not already doing that is madness), and had a high-availability cluster setup in place already. It sounds like avoiding downtime is important to you, yet there's no redundancy in the existing stack at all, and everything is done by hand.
This isn't something others should use as an example.
Or just nix. The new hardware deployment would have been one nixos-build or colmena call, not accounting for the data migration of course.
Why take 24 hours when you can spend a month trying to get Nix to work instead? Slightly facetious but...
yeah we did the same, however we also run an identical backup server in a different data center so we can switch over in matter of minutes if needed.
We need more competition across the board. These savings are insane and DO should be sweating, right?
When some component in OP's dedicated server fails, they will find out what that extra DO money was going toward. The DO droplet will live migrate to a healthy server. OP gets to take an extended outage while they file a Hetzner service ticket and wait for a human to perform the hardware replacement. Do some online research and see how long this often takes. I don't believe this Hetzner dedicated server model even has redundant PSUs.
Anyone who thinks DO and Hetzner dedicated servers are fungible products is making a mistake. These aren't the same service at all. There are savings to be had but this isn't a direct "unplug DO, plug in Hetzner" situation.
Hetzner also offers a VPS with superior specs to their old DO server for €374.99/month, or €0.6009/hour. They could just switch to a VPS temporarily while waiting for the hardware fix.
Although since they were running a LEMP server stack manually and did their migration by copying all files in /var/www/html via rsync and ad-hoc python scripts, even a DO droplet doesn't have the best guarantee. Their lowest-hanging fruit is probably switching to infrastructure as code, and dividing their stack across multiple cheaper servers instead of having a central point of failure for 34 applications.
The comparison is somewhat skewed, since they went from an (expensive) virtual server to a cheaper dedicated server (hardware).
One of the new risks is if anything critical happens with the hardware, network, switch etc. then everything is down, until someone at Hetzner go fixes it.
With a virtual server it’ll just get started on a different server straight away. Usually hypervisors also has 2 or more network connections etc.
And hopefully they also got some backup setup.
It’s still a huge amount of of savings and I’d probably do the same of I were in their shoes, but there is tradeoffs when going from virtual- to dedicated hardware.
I moved from Heztner to DO because my Hetzner IPs kept getting spoofed and then Hetzner would shut down my servers for "abuse". This hasn't happened once on DO, and I'm happy to pay a little more.
Scaleway, OVH, Exoscale, Clouding, Upcloud...
> We need more competition across the board. These savings are insane and DO should be sweating, right?
As the other person already said here, this blog post comparison is skewed.
BUT
EU cloud providers are much better value for money than the US providers.
The US providers will happily sit there nickle and diming you, often with deliberately obscure price sheets (hello AWS ;).
EU cloud provider pricing is much clearer and generally you get a lot more bang for your buck than you would with a US provider. Often EU providers will give you stuff for free that US providers would charge you for (e.g. various S3 API calls).
Therefore even if this blog post is skewed and incorrect, the overall argument still stands that you should be seriously looking at Hetzner or Upcloud or Exoscale or Scaleway or any of the other EU providers.
In addition there is the major benefit of not being subject to the US CLOUD and PATRIOT acts. Which despite what the sales-droids will tell you, still applies to the fake-EU provided by the US providers.
I did the same this year. I really liked Digital Ocean though, compared to more complex cloud offerings like AWS. AWS feels like spending more for the same complexity. At least DO feels like it does save time and mental band width. Still though, the performance of cloud VPS is abysmal for the price. I'm now on Hetzner + K3's plus Flux CD (with Cloudflare for file storage (R2) and caching. I run postgres on the same machine with frequent dump backups. If I ever need realtime read replicas, I'll likely just migrate the DB to Neon or something and keep Hetzner with snapshots for running app containers.
Love Hetzner. Cheapest prices in all the land (aside from Hosting your own server) from what I’ve gathered online. Host:
https://slitherworld.com
My foray into multiplayer games.
I’ve had Proxmox on one of their AX42 servers for a year now. All of it is backed up to PBS, backed by Cloudflare R2 storage.
None of it is mission critical - but it’s certainly something I’d use in production with a few more instances.
Networking over Tailscale works flawlessly with my Proxmox nodes at home.
does anyone else start to wonder about these companys issuing vps/online space with no hardening and no warning
you can basically go on hetzner and spin up a vps with linux that is exposed to the open internet with open ports and user security and within a few hours its been hacked, there is no like warning pop up that says "if you do this your server will be pwnd"
i especialy wonder with all the ai provisioned vps and postgres dbs what will happen here
Given the premise that zero day exploits are going to be frequent going forward, I feel like there is a new standard for secure deployment.
Namely, all remote access (including serving http) must managed by a major player big enough to be part of private disclosure (e.g. Project Glasswing).
That doesn't mean we have to use AWS et al for everything, but some sort of zero trust solution actively maintained by one of them seems like the right path. For example, I've started running on Hetzner with Cloudflare Tunnels.
Anyone else doing something similar?
> For example, I've started running on Hetzner with Cloudflare Tunnels.
How much latency does this add?
If I remember correctly (it has been a while since I looked), Hetzner although is a lot cheaper on the price sheet, they're European region by default and then if you look to get US region servers at Hetzner, the pricing is a lot higher and similar to Digital Ocean. Is that still the case?
For OP though who is a Turkey-based company and want European region servers anyway, it might make sense.
For what I use Hetzner for, and OP from the article, Hetzner only has dedicated servers in Europe, so there really isn't anything to compare to :) If I need dedicated servers in the US, I'd probably go with Vultr.
I think Hetzner makes most sense (for myself, and OP seemingly too) because they have dedicated servers, and they're in Europe. Extra bonus is the unmetered connection, but primarily just good and cheap servers :)
I assume a vm on DO is HA protected. Also storage might live on a Cluster. Did you consider a socond dedi or do you just accept the risk of longer failover time and data loss time (RPO) for recovering to a newly provisioned server? Would love to know your thoughts on this especially as the migration was well designed and executed.
I started with DO in 2013 when they offered 20GB SSD, 512MB RAM for $5/mo. For some reason I paid no VAT then, but I do now. Their $4/mo option now is still 512MB, still 1 vCPU, but 10GB SSD. So it's like the last decade of technological progress with regards to RAM, CPU and storage that should either lead to price cuts/spec bumps didn't happen. And yeah, DO got expensive before AI bought up all the memory.
You didn't consider inflation. 2013's $5 is $7 in today's money. Today's $4 equals roughly 2013's $2.82.
So a near 44% price reduction for a 50% reduction in only one of the components. Looks like progression to me.
Did this about a year ago, went smoother than expected tbh. the main gotcha for us was DO's managed postgres — had to dump/restore manually since there's no direct migration path to Hetzner's managed DBs. ended up just self-hosting postgres on a separate box which has been fine, maybe even better.
A zero-downtime migration to a single database server? Power fails, disks fail, even CPU fans sometimes fail and bring a single server to a halt. Somehow I would have expected at least a high-available database cluster with multiple machines for applications "serving hundreds of thousands of users".
I considered going to hetzner at one point but I read a lot of stories around hetzner that didn't inspire confidence. Primarily that they're not really that much cheaper than going to other companies offering something similar.
If some people can chime in with their positive experiences I might switch.
We are currently moving from heroku to Hetzner. Same story, thousands saved / month.
Am I missing something? I'm genuinely surprised it was not deployed from the start on a dedicated server. Don't you make a cost analysis before deploy? And if the cost analysis was ok at initial deploy, why wait to have such a difference in cost before migrating? How much money goes wasted in such situations?
Managed services have value. It's less to set up, less to maintain, and less worrying about waking up at 3am when something breaks.
I've spent time eating the costs of things like DigitalOcean or SaaS products because my time is better spent growing my revenue than reducing infrastructure costs. But at some point, costs can grow large enough that's it's worthwhile to shift focus to reducing infrastructure spend.
Migrated from OVH to Hezner last Winter too, 0 downtime since, rolling backup running fine and lower bill too.
> The key: proxy_ssl_verify off — the new server’s SSL cert is valid for the domain, not for the IP address. Disabling verification here is fine because we control both ends.
Yeah - no, it's not. They made the MitM attack possible with this change. The exposure was limited to those 5 minutes, but it should have been a known risk.
Also not certain how they could check the apps on the new server with the read-only database, while it was a replica?
Still, nice to hear it succeeded, the reasons sound very familiar.
I'm currently paying $800ish a month for digital ocean servers that I know would fit on a single hetzner machine :/
> Cloud providers are expensive for steady-state workloads.
Asking the obvious question: why not your own server in a colo?
We used to run some servers in a colo, we had 4u.
The problem with actually owning hardware is that you need a lot of it, and need to be prepared to manage things like upgrading firmware. You need to keep on top of the advisories for your network card, the power unit, the enterprise management card, etc. etc. If something goes wrong someone might need to drive in and plug in a keyboard.
Eventually we admitted to ourselves we didn't want those problems.
> and need to be prepared to manage things like upgrading firmware
At one point in the early 2000's, my brother was soldering new capacitors onto dell raid cards. (I like to call that full-stack ops.)
Does dedicated hetzner servers handle this?
“Your own server in a colo” means going to the colo to swap RAM or an SSD when something goes wrong. You rent a server and the benefit is the rentor has spare parts on hand and staff to swap parts out.
So on average once or twice per 5 years per server. Remote hands are also service you can pay for.
Most expense is initial setup and automation, but once you get thru that hump and have non-spiky loads it can be massively cheaper
You can also pay smart hands to do that. My experience with Equinix for example it's been great.
You have to deal with a lot more stuff. You have to order/pay for a server (capex), mount it somewhere, wire up lights-out-mgmt and recovery and do a few more tasks that the provider has already done.
Then, say if the motherboard gives up, you have to do quite a bit of work to get it replaced, you might be down for hours or maybe days.
For a single server I don't think it makes sense. For 8 servers, maybe. Depends on the opportunity cost.
Have you done this yourself? If you haven't I think you'd discover server hardware is actually shockingly reliable. You could go years without needing to physically touch anything on a single machine. I find that people who are used to cloud assume stuff is breaking all the time. That's true at scale, but when you have a handful of machines you can go a very long time between failures.
Yes, having done this for decades, it happens often enough that you need to plan for it. You need to have redundancy, spare parts, and staffing or you are basically gambling. All of this has to be tested, too, or you might find that your failover mechanism has dependencies you didn’t plan for or unexpected failure modes (I’ve twice experienced data center hard outages due to the power distribution system failing oddly when switching between mains and UPS power, or UPS and generator).
Using something like AWS can make it easy to assume that servers don’t fail often but that’s because the major players have all of that behind the scenes, heavily tested, and will migrate VMs when prefail indicators trigger but before stuff is done.
If you have failover redundancy of services across your systems of some kind to mitigate then great. With proper setup no worries. I guess it depends how much you want to take on vs hand off.
> why not your own server in a colo?
Have you seen what the LLM crowd have done to server prices ?
I Guess hetzner is basically "your server in colo"
It's also expensive (redundant server hardware, xconnect, power, firewall(s), PSU access, smart hands, sysadmin).
But it's indeed cheaper with high, sustained workloads.
Bit of waste of time for a server. Only makes sense if you actually need at least half a rack
is a pity that Hetzner does not have monitoring agent like DO. in DO you can set alerts and view all metrics. its this one thing that keeps me from migrating because i dont want to install custom monitoring solutions.
I also have used DO for years, and was very happy with the quality of their service. Until I found the alternative prices. Not as easy to use, but much better performance for much lower prices.
Is Hetzner as reliable as DO though?
Over the years I've heard plenty of horror stories from Hetzner customers.
Most VPS hosting companies have cheap entrance VPS but then steep pricing. 8 vCPUs on DigitalOcean cost 96$ and ~11$ on Hetzner.
I'm not against vertical scaling and stuff, but 30 db instances in one server is just crazy.
It's an average of 8GB per database, I guess he serves multiple clients and decided to "segregate" each client on its instance. If it's acceptable for the business it's nothing wrong with his setup.
> Several live mobile apps serving hundreds of thousands of users
It seems like he's having a database for each app.
Could be, but this doesn't change my statement: if it's acceptable from the business standpoint there is nothing wrong with this setup.
> 30 db instances
They didn't say that and the article didn't allude to that. 1 instance with 30 databases.
Ah yes that's probably true, but still having 30 apps in a single db instance doesn't seem better...
Super happy customer for about 5 years now..
And i say it every time they came up: Their cloud UX is brilliant and simple! Compared to the big ones out there.
I moved my VPS from Rackspace to Hertzner. From $120/mo to $35.
Moving away from the US also felt great.
Can someone tell me the AWS server cost with the same spec? Probably $5000 per month?
I use OVH btw.
I hope your backups are in order.
When I hear OVH I immediately think about their burning datacenters …
You guys have backups, right?
I got blocked for non reason on DigitalOcean.
Hey, congrats! What city do you live in?
Just watch out Hetzner don’t fail to take a payment from you from their end then proceed to flag your account for non-payment all while communicating absolutely nothing about this to you arriving at the conclusion they will delete all your servers and ban your account and identity from ever using them again.
Happened to me.
I now advise people to avoid clown-led services like Hetzner and stick to more reputable, if not as cheap, options.
I chose to ignore the cost savings and just enjoy the tale of migration. It’s a good one.
I had to ban the whole DigitalOcean AS.
Full of scanners, script kiddies and maybe worse.
My fail2ban is loaded with DO scanners everyday.
Why did the title get editorialized from the original to omit key facts? That’s some sleazy modding HN.
Ah yes, create db replica, promote replica to primary. Seems so simple!
When I’ve seen this work well, it’s either built into the product as an established feature, or it’s a devops procedure that has a runbook and is done weekly.
Doing it with low level commands and without a lot of experience is pretty likely to have issues. And that’s what happened here.
It's tough to work with these publicly traded companies. They need to boost prices to show revenue growth. At some point, they become a bad deal. I've already migrated from DO. Not because of service or quality, but solely because of price.
Yeah just how it is even outside of the cloud. At some point nearly all companies eventually try to take advantage of inertia and vendor lock in, if you are willing to undertake the pain of switching it's almost always a savings.
Where did you migrate out to?
Hetzner. Vultr.
Great article
And DigitalOcean customer support is non-existent. I had a mail server down and they cut service instead of trying to contact me in any other way. But worse, when they do that, they immediately destroy your data without any possibility to restore. Or at least that's what they told me with their bog standard, garbage support replies. I was a customer for nearly a decade. After it happened, I realized that never would have happened on GCP, AWS, etc. Because they take billing seriously with multiple contact info, a recovery period, etc. All the things a company would be expected to do to maintain good relationships with customers during a billing issue that lasts a few weeks. That was a couple of years ago, so maybe they fixed some stuff. But the complete lack of support and unprofessional B2B practices was an eye opener.
DigitalOcean just absolutely is just not an enterprise solution. Don't trust it with your data.
Oh, and did I mention I had been paying the upcharge for backups the entire time?
100
Didn't Hetzner prices increase 30-40% recently? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47120145
As such, I doubt the noted price reduction is reproducible. Combine this with Hetzner's sudden deletions of user accounts and services without warning, and it's a bad proposition. Search r/hetzner and r/vps for hetzner for these words: banned, deleted, terminated; there are many reports. What should stun you even more about it is that Hetzner could ostensibly be closely spying on user data and workloads, even offline workloads, without which they won't even know who to ban.
The only thing that Hetzner might potentially be good for is to add to an expendable distributed compute pool, one that you can afford to lose, but then you might as well also use other bottom-of-the-barrel untrustworthy providers for it too, e.g. OVH.
without looking at either the article or the pricing pages, on any of the relevant providers, just what's on the title of this thread and your comment
> $1,432 to $233
a difference of 5/6 in price does not materially change the decision to move between providers, even with a 40% price increase
You could have loaded the Hetzner pricing page and checked - the server in the article is currently listed around $30/month higher. Not enough to materially change the equation
Now consider that DO is reasonably priced compared to the big three cloud providers.
Cloud is ludicrously marked up.
I think Digital Ocean is not something where I would worry about costs. I would prefer server like Hetzner but I don't think DO is service where the costs are such that we need to do movement.
Plus, this is not what DHH was doing, he was not saving few bucks, but unlocking potential for his company to thrive.
I always appreciate savings posts, but is $14k USD annual really make or break for a Turkish business? I would not know.
That's not the point. You should be asking why DO is so much more expensive.
Not everyone likes wasting money.
The calculus is: is the labor spent on saving 14k annually worth less than the labor which adds features that net 14k income?
Certainly the former is more predictable than the latter though.
Choosing to do neither is wasting money.
Guess I've been enjoying it for so long, I feel so stupid. Thanks for this.
If you only have Rs. 100 in your pocket, you will think hard before spending Rs. 10. If you have Rs. 1000 in your pocket, you will not mind spending Rs. 10. That said, even if you are financially sound, why in the world would you want to pay $14k extra for a similar service that is available cheaper? That money could be better utilised elsewhere.
Most Turks will have zero Rs. in their pocket :)
It's a nice chunk of change, which you could use for other purposes. It might not make or break the company, but it could pay for something that actually generates business.
Tale a look at https://www.google.com/finance/quote/USD-TRY?window=MAX
when i save money on something without losing performance or reliability, i feel like a real hacker and money saved is just cherry on top of self accomplishment i feel.
I suspect with that money you could get a full time customer support person for your business. Now think about it, what's creating more value to your customers: having your infra on Digital Ocean or having a better customer support?
Bet I can get 2x more from spending that in anthropic tokens than paying you a full year salary
Think of it in percentage savings.
You can get an (a bit less than) a full employee for that. And that's a better ROI than just throwing it away.
I don't think you can get someone decent in a tech related job for that much money anywhere.
Companies have other employees than just techbros and in many cases they're more valuable.
> Old server: CentOS 7 — long past its end-of-life, but still running in production. New server: AlmaLinux 9.7 — a RHEL 9 compatible distribution and the natural successor to CentOS.
So they did same mistake all over again. Debian or Ubuntu would just be upgrade-in-place and migrate
I work with Linux deployments for a living and I have no idea what you are talking about.
Well, then you're doing piss poor job. Debian supports in place upgrade, Centos-based distros not really.
Get a new job