Its cloud, 10-15 times cheaper than Amazon EC2
The title turned out to be rather yellow, but it best conveys the essence of the post: you can create your own computing cloud, which will be an order of magnitude cheaper than Amazon EC2 offers. There are many nuances because of which such a “cheap cloud” may not come up, but, in my opinion, for many tasks it is quite suitable and copes with them perfectly.
Next, I want to talk about our experience in using OpenStack, deployed by Hetzner, and to give calculations of the cost of such a cloud.
In my opinion, Hetzner is the best hosting provider! I don’t care that they have desktops or used disks, not ECC memory, and anything else. I now have 14 servers, the oldest is 3 years old and so far there has not been a single significant problem.
I am convinced that iron should be cheap! The software should work stably on cheap hardware, in which failures, failures, data loss are possible. I have never understood when the performance problems of high-load systems want to be solved by buying a pair of top-end servers. The system must be designed to work on an inexpensive hardware; this should be incorporated both in the architecture of the system itself and in the technologies it uses. Naturally, for a number of tasks it is better and cheaper to hope for expensive hardware than to develop fault-tolerant software (for example, in the banking sector). But such tasks, in my opinion, are a minority.
')
I will not dwell on what OpenStack is and how to install it - there is already quite a lot of such information. I note that when deploying, we were guided by the principle that the cloud should be decentralized to the maximum. Those. we have not a single node, the failure of which would break our entire cloud. Even if a server with an OpenStack controller fails, the worst thing we get is the inability to control the state of virtual machines (create / stop, etc.). All virtual machines continue to work. This applies to both the network and the DNS and other necessary services.
Now there are 10 servers of different configurations in the cloud (starting from old EQ4 to EX4S). Total resources of such a cloud: 240 GB of RAM, 72 cores and 54 TB of disk space (without RAID).
I suggest trying to compare the cost of the resources of this cloud with Amazon EC2, although I understand that the comparison is not entirely correct: Amazon offers a complete, “boxed” product with a bunch of additional services and amenities, which is not in our cloud.
To rent On-Demand Small Instance (1.7GB, 1 VCPU, 160GB, Ireland) costs $ 0.08 per hour. According to my calculations, the hourly rental of this instance in your cloud based on Hetzner EX4S servers will cost $ 0.00488 per hour, i.e. 17 times cheaper! In the calculations, I used a simple principle: how many virtual machines of a similar configuration can I fit on the server (taking into account the costs of the host system). If we talk about Reserved Small Instance, the difference is about 10 times. For other types of instances, the numbers are similar. I admit that there are errors in the calculations: for example, you can rightly note that the host system may need more memory (now 1GB), or that there will not be enough CPU (now there are 3 VCPUs per 1 CPU). Maybe. But still, this solution will be much cheaper. And it works great. Here is a link to a table with calculations.
I repeat that I understand that it is incorrect to compare your cloud with Amazon, that there are a number of drawbacks (the lack of public IP boxes, additional services, the complexity of deployment / support, add your own version), but given the cost, perhaps, much of this can be close eyes!
If anyone needs help deploying such a cloud, we will be happy to help.
Next, I want to talk about our experience in using OpenStack, deployed by Hetzner, and to give calculations of the cost of such a cloud.
Hetzner
In my opinion, Hetzner is the best hosting provider! I don’t care that they have desktops or used disks, not ECC memory, and anything else. I now have 14 servers, the oldest is 3 years old and so far there has not been a single significant problem.
I am convinced that iron should be cheap! The software should work stably on cheap hardware, in which failures, failures, data loss are possible. I have never understood when the performance problems of high-load systems want to be solved by buying a pair of top-end servers. The system must be designed to work on an inexpensive hardware; this should be incorporated both in the architecture of the system itself and in the technologies it uses. Naturally, for a number of tasks it is better and cheaper to hope for expensive hardware than to develop fault-tolerant software (for example, in the banking sector). But such tasks, in my opinion, are a minority.
')
Openstack
I will not dwell on what OpenStack is and how to install it - there is already quite a lot of such information. I note that when deploying, we were guided by the principle that the cloud should be decentralized to the maximum. Those. we have not a single node, the failure of which would break our entire cloud. Even if a server with an OpenStack controller fails, the worst thing we get is the inability to control the state of virtual machines (create / stop, etc.). All virtual machines continue to work. This applies to both the network and the DNS and other necessary services.
Now there are 10 servers of different configurations in the cloud (starting from old EQ4 to EX4S). Total resources of such a cloud: 240 GB of RAM, 72 cores and 54 TB of disk space (without RAID).
Cost of
I suggest trying to compare the cost of the resources of this cloud with Amazon EC2, although I understand that the comparison is not entirely correct: Amazon offers a complete, “boxed” product with a bunch of additional services and amenities, which is not in our cloud.
To rent On-Demand Small Instance (1.7GB, 1 VCPU, 160GB, Ireland) costs $ 0.08 per hour. According to my calculations, the hourly rental of this instance in your cloud based on Hetzner EX4S servers will cost $ 0.00488 per hour, i.e. 17 times cheaper! In the calculations, I used a simple principle: how many virtual machines of a similar configuration can I fit on the server (taking into account the costs of the host system). If we talk about Reserved Small Instance, the difference is about 10 times. For other types of instances, the numbers are similar. I admit that there are errors in the calculations: for example, you can rightly note that the host system may need more memory (now 1GB), or that there will not be enough CPU (now there are 3 VCPUs per 1 CPU). Maybe. But still, this solution will be much cheaper. And it works great. Here is a link to a table with calculations.
I repeat that I understand that it is incorrect to compare your cloud with Amazon, that there are a number of drawbacks (the lack of public IP boxes, additional services, the complexity of deployment / support, add your own version), but given the cost, perhaps, much of this can be close eyes!
If anyone needs help deploying such a cloud, we will be happy to help.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/151781/
All Articles