| 2 Mar 2024 |
 raitobezarius | Actually, cache.nixos.org was unavailable a lot of times | 02:03:20 |
| raitobezarius | But no one notice it in general | 02:03:23 |
| raitobezarius | Because a CDN is in front of it so… | 02:03:36 |
 nh2 | I mean in Hetzner it's a standard setup to setup servers different data centers to ensure proper HA | 02:04:32 |
| raitobezarius | Yes, yes, if we have the means and money | 02:04:49 |
| raitobezarius | Let's go for multi-site HA | 02:04:53 |
| raitobezarius | But again, from my PoV (maybe wrong?), short of sponsoring from hardware manufacturers or companies, it's hard to support those costs upfront | 02:06:06 |
| raitobezarius | Let's say, if HW manufacturers said: here's disks, here's servers (cheap in the context anyhow), and we could just pay colo, that'd be interesting | 02:06:30 |
| raitobezarius | etc. | 02:06:33 |
| nh2 | This is not what I mean. I mean that if you buy the hardware for a colo, it costs a fixed price. You could put it into your colo in France, or in Hetzner, where you would get proper HA. | 02:06:33 |
| raitobezarius | In reply to @nh2:matrix.org
This is not what I mean. I mean that if you buy the hardware for a colo, it costs a fixed price. You could put it into your colo in France, or in Hetzner, where you would get proper HA. This, I don't disagree | 02:06:56 |
| raitobezarius | But what's your point regarding that? | 02:07:07 |
| nh2 | My point is: Hetzner is currently the cheapest $/TB hardware rental on the planet. The only cheaper way (long term) is owning the hardware and putting it into colo.
So I'm just pointing out, if you're considering colo, colo at Hetzner might be the way to go for the absolute cheapest and still reliable. | 02:08:52 |
| raitobezarius | I'm not extremely familiar with Hetzner colocation | 02:10:31 |
| raitobezarius | but reading from that https://www.hetzner.com/colocation/ | 02:10:35 |
| raitobezarius | assuming 1kW (constant) over one year, assuming 2 locations in Finland, at the announced electricity rates, this is something like 2×(119 + 0.2618€/kWh1kW1year) = 4827,87 € | 02:12:28 |
| raitobezarius | * assuming 1kW (constant) over one year, assuming 2 locations in Finland, at the announced electricity rates, this is something like 2×(119 + 0.2618€/kWh*1kW*1year) = 4827,87 € | 02:12:38 |
| raitobezarius | over one year | 02:12:45 |
| raitobezarius | for 17U of 2×10A if I understand well | 02:12:55 |
| raitobezarius | and 1Gbps | 02:12:57 |
| raitobezarius | I guess an additional 92,82€/mo because of the traffic | 02:13:28 |
| raitobezarius | and then some classical disk replacement schema over N years taking into account remote hands costs which are probably a constant at this point | 02:14:05 |
| raitobezarius | so that's the sort of proposal I'd be interested reading if there was any Hetzner colocation idea | 02:14:25 |
| raitobezarius | though this doesn't totally beat any random colocation because of the seemingly lack of custom peering options and the limited bandwidth | 02:14:56 |
| raitobezarius | unclear to me if hetzner can offer something better on that end | 02:15:09 |
| raitobezarius | oh shoot I forgot the 119€/mo | 02:15:33 |
| raitobezarius | but yeah something like 8K€/year + ϵ anyway | 02:15:52 |
| raitobezarius | so still competitive compared to 1470€/mo because in 17U, you could fit like a ridiculous amount of disks via JBODs or whatever | 02:16:33 |
| raitobezarius | and have complete control over the tiering | 02:16:39 |
| raitobezarius | so assuming we do have the hardware, this is a compelling option and if we offer a proper complete proposal to the foundation and operations make sense and infrastructure agrees to it, it could be adopted I guess | 02:18:24 |
