this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023

15 points (100.0% liked)

sh.itjust.works Main Community

7584 readers

1 users here now

Home of the sh.itjust.works instance.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Where it stands now how much does it cost to keep this server running, and how can we help with that? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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

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

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

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Something with Dual CPUs, at least 128GB ram, dual 750W PSUs, hardware raid (12Gbps) and 8 x 2.5" SAS/SATA slots for SSD Drives on a raid 10

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ddr4 or 5? I might have 128gb of rdimm ddr4 I'm never going to use sitting on my desk.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

ECC memory though?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What are you doing for backups?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's the "drive replacements" part I believe

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Drive replacement != backup

Drive replacement = maintenance, a subset of physical security.

Backup = logical security.

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

And what if several drives fail at once or a bad actor deletes the data? :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

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

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

He mentioned colo, so it sounds like he's already decided against on-prem.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

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

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Really nice breakdown thanks for sharing! Totally reasonable goals to reach too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is a pinned post on this community. It reads:

Firstly, the issue of donations. Since the inception of this instance, your most frequent request has been the ability to make contributions to support my initiative. While initially, I had never intended to accept donations, I’ve come to realize the value this brings in ensuring our platform’s sustainability. In response to your requests, within the next week, I will be introducing several options for those of you who wish to donate. I want to emphasize that these donations are entirely optional and will directly support our instance’s operational necessities - dedicated hardware, colocation fees, email services, and more.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

How dare you call out my inability to read haha

I'm still curious about the actual price it runs to keep up, like if someone wanted to host an instance

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Major performance problems have been fixed in Lemmy in the past 48 hours, with more pending in the next 24. The latest code on GitHub is far better than 0.17.4/0.18.0 in terms of hammering the server.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm hoping for an Open Collective page like a lot of instances have done.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

This is what I'm currently working towards. Waiting for a Fiscal host to accept our application!

load more comments