> I'd argue self-hosting is the right choice for basically everyone, with the few exceptions at both ends of the extreme:
> If you're just starting out in software & want to get something working quickly with vibe coding, it's easier to treat Postgres as just another remote API that you can call from your single deployed app
> If you're a really big company and are reaching the scale where you need trained database engineers to just work on your stack, you might get economies of scale by just outsourcing that work to a cloud company that has guaranteed talent in that area. The second full freight salaries come into play, outsourcing looks a bit cheaper.
This is funny. I'd argue the exact opposite. I would self host only:
* if I were on a tight budget and trading an hour or two of my time for a cost saving of a hundred dollars or so is a good deal; or
* at a company that has reached the scale where employing engineers to manage self-hosted databases is more cost effective than outsourcing.
I have nothing against self-hosting PostgreSQL. Do whatever you prefer. But to me outsourcing this to cloud providers seems entirely reasonable for small and medium-sized businesses. According to the author's article, self hosting costs you between 30 and 120 minutes per month (after setup, and if you already know what to do). It's easy to do the math...
> employing engineers to manage self-hosted databases is more cost effective than outsourcing
Every company out there is using the cloud and yet still employs infrastructure engineers to deal with its complexity. The "cloud" reducing staff costs is and was always a lie.
PaaS platforms (Heroku, Render, Railway) can legitimately be operated by your average dev and not have to hire a dedicated person; those cost even more though.
Another limitation of both the cloud and PaaS is that they are only responsible for the infrastructure/services you use; they will not touch your application at all. Can your application automatically recover from a slow/intermittent network, a DB failover (that you can't even test because your cloud providers' failover and failure modes are a black box), and so on? Otherwise you're waking up at 3am no matter what.
> Every company out there is using the cloud and yet still employs infrastructure engineers
Every company beyond a particular size surely? For many small and medium sized companies hiring an infrastructure team makes just as little sense as hiring kitchen staff to make lunch.
It depends very much what the company is doing.
At my last two places it very quickly got to the point where the technical complexity of deployments, managing environments, dealing with large piles of data, etc. meant that we needed to hire someone to deal with it all.
They actually preferred managing VMs and self hosting in many cases (we kept the cloud web hosting for features like deploy previews, but that’s about it) to dealing with proprietary cloud tooling and APIs. Saved a ton of money, too.
On the other hand, the place before that was simple enough to build and deploy using cloud solutions without hiring someone dedicated (up to at least some pretty substantial scale that we didn’t hit).
For small companies things like vercel, supabase, firebase, ... wipe the floor with Amazon RDS.
For medium sized companies you need "devops engineers". And in all honesty, more than you'd need sysadmins for the same deployment.
For large companies, they split up AWS responsibilities into entire departments of teams (for example, all clouds have math auth so damn difficult most large companies have -not 1- but multiple departments just dealing with authorization, before you so much as start your first app)
You're paying people to do the role either way, if it's not dedicated staff then it's taking time away from your application developers so they can play the role of underqualified architects, sysadmins, security engineers.
From experience (because I used to do this), it’s a lot less time than a self-hosted solution, once you’re factoring in the multiple services that need to be maintained.
As someone who has done both.. i disagree, i find self hosting to a degree much easier and much less complex
Local reproducibility is easier, and performance is often much better
It depends entirely on your use case. If all you need is a DB and Python/PHP/Node server behind Nginx then you can get away with that for a long time. Once you throw in a task runner, emails, queue systems, blob storage, user-uploaded content, etc. you can start running beyond your own ability or time to fix the inevitable problems.
As I pointed out above, you may be better served mixing and matching so you spend your time on the critical aspects but offload those other tasks to someone else.
Of course, I’m not sitting at your computer so I can’t tell you what’s right for you.
I mean, fair, we are ofc offloading some of that.. email being one of those, LLM`s being another thing.
Task runner/que at least for us postgres works for both cases.
We also self host an s3 storage and allow useruploaded content in within strict borders.
Yeah, and nobody is looking at the other side of this. There just are not a lot of good DBA/sysop type who even want to work for some non-tech SMB. So this either gets outsourced to the cloud, or some junior dev or desktop support guy hacks it together. And then who knows if the backups are even working.
Fact is a lot of these companies are on the cloud because their internal IT was a total fail.
If they just paid half of the markup they currently pay for the cloud I'm sure they'll be swimming in qualified candidates.
Our AWS spend is something like $160/month. Want to come build bare metal database infrastructure for us for $3/day?
When you need to scale up and don't want that $160 to increase 10x to handle the additional load the numbers start making more sense: 3 month's worth of the projected increase upfront is around 4.3k, which is good money for a few days' work for the setup/migration and remains a good deal for you since you break even after 3 months and keep on pocketing the savings indefinitely from that point on.
Of course, my comment wasn't aimed at those who successfully keep their cloud bill in the low 3-figures, but the majority of companies with a 5-figure bill and multiple "infrastructure" people on payroll futzing around with YAML files. Even half the achieved savings should be enough incentive for those guys to learn something new.
> few days' work
But initial setup is maybe 10% of the story. The day 2 operations of monitoring, backups, scaling, and failover still needs to happen, and it still requires expertise.
If you bring that expertise in house, it costs much more than 10x ($3/day -> $30/day = $10,950/year).
If you get the expertise from experts who are juggling you along with a lot of other clients, you get something like PlanetScale or CrunchyData, which are also significantly more expensive.
> monitoring
Most monitoring solutions support Postgres and don't actually care where your DB is hosted. Of course this only applies if someone was actually looking at the metrics to begin with.
> backups
Plenty of options to choose from depending on your recovery time objective. From scheduled pg_dumps to WAL shipping to disk snapshots and a combination of them at any schedule you desire. Just ship them to your favorite blob storage provider and call it a day.
> scaling
That's the main reason I favor bare-metal infrastructure. There is no way anything on the cloud (at a price you can afford) can rival the performance of even a mid-range server that scaling is effectively never an issue; if you're outgrowing that, the conversation we're having is not about getting a big DB but using multiple DBs and sharding at the application layer.
> failover still needs to happen
Yes, get another server and use Patroni/etc. Or just accept the occasional downtime and up to 15 mins of data loss if the machine never comes back up. You'd be surprised how many businesses are perfectly fine with this. Case in point: two major clouds had hour-long downtimes recently and everyone basically forgot about it a week later.
> If you bring that expertise in house
Infrastructure should not require continuous upkeep/repair. You wouldn't buy a car that requires you to have a full-time mechanic in the passenger seat at all times. If your infrastructure requires this, you should ask for a refund and buy from someone who sells more reliable infra.
A server will run forever once set up unless hardware fails (and some hardware can be redundant with spares provisioned ahead of time to automatically take over and delay maintenance operations). You should spend a couple hours a month max on routine maintenance which can be outsourced and still beats the cloud price.
I think you're underestimating the amount of tech that is essentially nix machines all around you that somehow just... work* despite having zero upkeep or maintenance. Modern hardware is surprisingly reliable and most outages are caused by operator error when people are (potentially unnecessarily) messing with stuff rather than the hardware failing.
At 160/mo you are using so little you might as well host off of a raspberry pi on your desk with a USB3 SSD attached. Maintenance and keeping a hot backup would take a few hours to set up, and you're more flexible too. And if you need to scale, rent a VPS or even dedicated machine from Hetzner.
An LLM could set this up for you, it's dead simple.
I'm not going to put customer data on a USB-3 SSD sitting on my desk. Having a small database doesn't mean you can ignore physical security and regulatory compliance, particularly if you've still got reasonable cash flow. Just as one example, some of our regulatory requirements involve immutable storage - how am I supposed to make an SSD that's literally on my desk immutable in any meaningful way? S3 handles this in seconds. Same thing with geographically distributed replicas and backups.
I also disagree that the ongoing maintenance, observability, and testing of a replicated database would take a few hours to set up and then require zero maintenance and never ping me with alerts.
Nice troll. But TFA is about corporate IT so hopefully you get whatever.
For companies not heavily into tech, lots of this stuff is not that expensive. Again, how many DBAs are even looking for a 3 hr/month sidegig?
> Every company out there is using the cloud and yet still employs infrastructure engineers to deal with its complexity. The "cloud" reducing staff costs is and was always a lie.
This doesn’t make sense as an argument. The reason the cloud is more complex is because that complexity is available. Under a certain size, a large number of cloud products simply can’t be managed in-house (and certainly not altogether).
Also your argument is incorrect in my experience.
At a smaller business I worked at, I was able to use these services to achieve uptime and performance that I couldn’t achieve self-hosted, because I had to spend time on the product itself. So yeah, we’d saved on infrastructure engineers.
At larger scales, what your false dichotomy suggests also doesn’t actually happen. Where I work now, our data stores are all self-managed on top of EC2/Azure, where performance and reliability are critical. But we don’t self-host everything. For example, we use SES to send our emails and we use RDS for our app DB, because their performance profiles and uptime guarantees are more than acceptable for the price we pay. That frees up our platform engineers to spend their energy on keeping our uptime on our critical services.
>At a smaller business I worked at, I was able to use these services to achieve uptime and performance that I couldn’t achieve self-hosted, because I had to spend time on the product itself. So yeah, we’d saved on infrastructure engineers.
How sure are you about that one? All of my hetzner vm`s reach an uptime if 99.9% something.
I could see more then one small business stack fitting onto a single of those vm`s.
100% certain because I started by self hosting before moving to AWS services for specific components and improved the uptime and reduced the time I spent keeping those services alive.
What was work you spend configuring those services and keeping them alive? I am genuinely curious...
We have a very limited set of services, but most have been very painless to maintain.
A Django+Celery app behind Nginx back in the day. Most maintenance would be discovering a new failure mode:
- certificates not being renewed in time
- Celery eating up all RAM and having to be recycled
- RabbitMQ getting blocked requiring a forced restart
- random issues with Postgres that usually required a hard restart of PG (running low on RAM maybe?)
- configs having issues
- running out of inodes
- DNS not updating when upgrading to a new server (no CDN at the time)
- data centre going down, taking the provider’s email support with it (yes, really)
Bear in mind I’m going back a decade now, my memory is rusty. Each issue was solvable but each would happen at random and even mitigating them was time that I (a single dev) was not spending on new features or fixing bugs.
I mean, going back a decade might be part of the reason?
Configs having issues is like number 1 reason i like the setup so much..
I can configure everything on my local machine and test here, and then just deploy it to a server the same way.
I do not have to build a local setup, and then a remote one
Er… what? Even in today’s world with Docker, you have differences between dev and prod. For a start, one is accessed via the internet and requires TLS configs to work correctly. The other is accessed via localhost.
I use a https for localhost, there are a ton of options for that.
But yes, the cert is created differently in prod and there are a few other differences.
But it's much closer then in the cloud.
Just fyi, you can put whatever you want in /etc/hosts, it gets hit before the resolver. So you can run your website on localhost with your regular host name over https.
I’m aware, I just picked one example but there are others like instead of a mail server you’re using console, or you have a CDN.
Just because your VM is running doesn't mean the service is accessible. Whenever there's a large AWS outage it's usually not because the servers turned off. It also doesn't guarantee that your backups are working properly.
If you have a server where everything is on the server, the server being on means everything is online... There is not a lot of complexity going on inside a single server infrastructure.
I mean just because you have backups does not mean you can restore them ;-)
We do test backup restoration automatically and also on a quarterly basis manually, but so you should do with AWS.
Otherwise how do you know you can restore system a without impact other dependency, d and c
Yes, mix-and-match is the way to go, depending on what kind of skills are available in your team. I wouldn't touch a mail server with a 10-foot pole, but I'll happily self-manage certain daemons that I'm comfortable with.
Just be careful not to accept more complexity just because it is available, which is what the AWS evangelists often try to sell. After all, we should always make an informed decision when adding a new dependency, whether in code or in infrastructure.
Of course AWS are trying to sell you everything. It’s still on you and your team to understand your product and infrastructure and decide what makes sense for you.
> still employs infrastructure engineers
> The "cloud" reducing staff costs
Both can be true at the same time.
Also:
> Otherwise you're waking up at 3am no matter what.
Do you account for frequency and variety of wakeups here?
> Do you account for frequency and variety of wakeups here?
Yes. In my career I've dealt with way more failures due to unnecessary distributed systems (that could have been one big bare-metal box) rather than hardware failures.
You can never eliminate wake-ups, but I find bare-metal systems to have much less moving parts means you eliminate a whole bunch of failure scenarios so you're only left with actual hardware failure (and HW is pretty reliable nowadays).
If this isn't the truth. I just spent several weeks, on and off, debugging a remote hosted build system tool thingy because it was in turn made of at least 50 different microservice type systems and it was breaking in the middle of two of them.
There was, I have to admit, a log message that explained the problem... once I could find the specific log message and understand the 45 steps in the chain that got to that spot.
In-house vs Cloud Provider is largely a wash in terms of cost. Regardless of the approach, you are going need people to maintain stuff and people cost money. Similarly compute and storage cost money so what you lose on the swings, you gain on the roundabouts.
In my experience you typically need less people if using a Cloud Provider than in-house (or the same number of people can handle more instances) due to increased leverage. Whether you can maximize what you get via leverage depends on how good your team is.
US companies typically like to minimize headcount (either through accounting tricks or outsourcing) so usually using a Cloud Provider wins out for this reason alone. It's not how much money you spend, it's how it looks on the balance sheet ;)
Working in a university Lab self-hosting is the default for almost anything. While I would agree that cost are quite low, I sometimes would be really happy to throw money at problems to make them go away. Without having the chance and thus being no expert, I really see the opportunity of scaling (up and down) quickly in the cloud. We ran a postgres database of a few 100 GB with multiple read replica and we managed somehow, but actually really hit our limits of expertise at some point. At some point we stopped migrating to newer database schemas because it was just such a hassle keeping availability. If I had the money as company, I guess I would have paid for a hosted solution.
The fact that as many engineers are on payroll doesn't mean that "cloud" is not an efficiency improvement. When things are easier and cheaper, people don't do less or buy less. They do more and buy more until they fill their capacity. The end result is the same number (or more) of engineers, but they deal with a higher level of abstraction and achieve more with the same headcount.
I can't talk about staff costs, but as someone who's self-hosted Postgres before, using RDS or Supabase saves weeks of time on upgrades, replicas, tuning, and backups (yeah, you still need independent backups, but PITRs make life easier). Databases and file storage are probably the most useful cloud functionality for small teams.
If you have the luxury of spending half a million per year on infrastructure engineers then you can of course do better, but this is by no means universal or cost-effective.
Well sure you still have 2 or 3 infra people but now you don’t need 15. Comparing to modern Hetzner is also not fair to “cloud” in the sense that click-and-get-server didn’t exist until cloud providers popped up. That was initially the whole point. If bare metal behind an API existed in 2009 the whole industry would look very different. Contingencies Rule Everything Around Me.
I don’t think it’s a lie, it’s just perhaps overstated. The number of staff needed to manage a cloud infrastructure is definitely lower than that required to manage the equivalent self-hosted infrastructure.
Whether or not you need that equivalence is an orthogonal question.
> The number of staff needed to manage a cloud infrastructure is definitely lower than that required to manage the equivalent self-hosted infrastructure.
There's probably a sweet spot where that is true, but because cloud providers offer more complexity (self-inflicted problems) and use PR to encourage you to use them ("best practices" and so on) in all the cloud-hosted shops I've been in a decade of experience I've always seen multiple full-time infra people being busy with... something?
There was always something to do, whether to keep up with cloud provider changes/deprecations, implementing the latest "best practice", debugging distributed systems failures or self-inflicted problems and so on. I'm sure career/resume polishing incentives are at play here too - the employee wants the system to require their input otherwise their job is no longer needed.
Maybe in a perfect world you can indeed use cloud-hosted services to reduce/eliminate dedicated staff, but in practice I've never seen anything but solo founders actually achieve that.
Exactly. Companies with cloud infra often still have to hire infra people or even an infra team, but that team will be smaller than if they were self-hosting everything, in some cases radically smaller.
I love self-hosting stuff and even have a bias towards it, but the cost/time tradeoff is more complex than most people think.
You are missing that most services don't have high availability needs and don't need to scale.
Most projects I have worked on in my career have never seen more than a hundred concurrent users. If something goes down on Saturday, I am going to fix it on Monday.
I have worked on internal tools were I just added a postgres DB to the docker setup and that was it. 5 Minute of work and no issues at all. Sure if you have something customer facing, you need to do a bit more and setup a good backup strategy but that really isn't magic.
> at a company that has reached the scale where employing engineers to manage self-hosted databases is more cost effective than outsourcing.
This is the crux of one of the most common fallacies in software engineering decision making today. I've participated in a bunch of architecture / vendor evaluations that concluded managed services are more cost effective almost purely because they underestimated (or even discarded entirely) the internal engineering cost of vendor management. Black box debugging is one of the most time costuming engineering pursuits, & even when it's something widely documented & well supported like RDS, it's only really tuned for the lowest common denominator - the complexities of tuning someone else's system at scale can really add up to only marginally less effort than self-hosting (if there's any difference at all).
But most importantly - even if it's significantly less effort than self-hosting, it's never effectively costed when evaluating trade-offs - that's what leads to this persistent myth about the engineering cost of self-hosting. "Managing" managed services is a non-zero cost.
Add to that the ultimate trade-off of accountability vs availability (internal engineers care less about availability when it's out of there hands - but it's still a loss to your product either way).
> Black box debugging is one of the most time costuming engineering pursuits, & even when it's something widely documented & well supported like RDS, it's only really tuned for the lowest common denominator - the complexities of tuning someone else's system at scale can really add up to only marginally less effort than self-hosting (if there's any difference at all).
I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. I manage many RDS clusters at work. I think in total, we've spent maybe eight hours over the last three years "tuning" the system. It runs at about 100kqps during peak load. Could it be cheaper or faster? Probably, but it's a small fraction of our total infra spend and it's not keeping me up at night.
Virtually all the effort we've ever put in here has been making the application query the appropriate indexes. But you'd do no matter how you host your database.
Hell, even the metrics that RDS gives you for free make the thing pay for itself, IMO. The thought of setting up grafana to monitor a new database makes me sweat.
> even the metrics that RDS gives you for free make the thing pay for itself, IMO. The thought of setting up grafana to monitor a new database makes me sweat.
CloudNative PG actually gives you really nice dashboards out-of-the-box for free. see: https://github.com/cloudnative-pg/grafana-dashboards
Sure, and I can install something to do RDS performance insights without querying PG stats, and something to schedule backups to another region, and something to aggregate the logs, and then I have N more things that can break.
| self hosting costs you between 30 and 120 minutes per month
Can we honestly say that cloud services taking a half hour to two hours a month of someone's time on average is completely unheard of?
I handle our company's RDS instances, and probably spend closer to 2 hours a year than 2 hours a month over the last 8 years.
It's definitely expensive, but it's not time-consuming.
Of course. But people also have high uptime servers with long-running processes they barely touch.
Very much depends on what you're doing in the cloud, how many services you are using, and how frequently those services and your app needs updates.
Self hosting does not cost you that much at all. It's basically zero once you've got backups automated.
I also encourage people to just use managed databases. After all, it is easy to replace such people. Heck actually you can fire all of them and replace the demand with genAI nowadays.
Agreed. As someone in a very tiny shop, all us devs want to do as little context switching to ops as possible. Not even half a day a month. Our hosted services are in aggregate still way cheaper than hiring another person. (We do not employ an "infrastructure engineer").
its not. I've been in a few shops that use RDS because they think their time is better spend doing other things.
except now they are stuck trying to maintain and debug Postgres without having the same visibility and agency that they would if they hosted it themselves. situation isn't at all clear.
One thing unaccounted for if you've only ever used cloud-hosted DBs is just how slow they are compared to a modern server with NVME storage.
This leads the developers to do all kinds of workarounds and reach for more cloud services (and then integrating them and - often poorly - ensuring consistency across them) because the cloud hosted DB is not able to handle the load.
On bare-metal, you can go a very long way with just throwing everything at Postgres and calling it a day.
100% this directly connected nvme is a massive win. Often several orders of magnitude.
You can take it even further in some context if you use sqlite.
I think one of the craziest ideas of the cloud decade was to move storage away from compute. It's even worse with things like AWS lambda or vercel.
Now vercel et al are charging you extra to have your data next to your compute. We're basically back to VMs at 100-1000x the cost.
Yeah our cloud DBs all have abysmal performance and high recurring cost even compared to metal we didn't even buy for hosting DBs.
This is the reason I manage SQL Server on a VM in Azure instead of their PaaS offering. The fully managed SQL has terrible performance unless you drop many thousands a month. The VM I built is closer to 700 a month.
Running on IaaS also gives you more scalability knobs to tweak: SSD Iops and b/w, multiple drives for logs/partitions, memory optimized VMs, and there's a lot of low level settings that aren't accessible in managed SQL. Licensing costs are also horrible with managed SQL Server, where it seems like you pay the Enterprise level, but running it yourself offers lower cost editions like Standard or Web.
Interesting. Is this an issue with RDS?
I use Google Cloud SQL for PostgreSQL and it's been rock solid. No issues; troubleshooting works fine; all extensions we need already installed; can adjust settings where needed.
its more of a general condition - its not that RDS is somehow really faulty, its just that when things do go wrong, its not really anybody's job to introspect the system because RDS is taking care of it for us.
in the limit I dont think we should need DBAs, but as long as we need to manage indices by hand, think more than 10 seconds about the hot queries, manage replication, tune the vacuumer, track updates, and all the other rot - then actually installing PG on a node of your choice is really the smallest of problems you face.
The discussion isn't "what is more effective". The discussion is "who wants to be blamed in case things go south". If you push the decision to move to self-hosted and then one of the engineers fucks up the database, you have a serious problem. If same engineer fucks up cloud database, it's easier to save your own ass.
> trading an hour or two of my time
pacman -S postgresql
initdb -D /pathto/pgroot/data
grok/claude/gpt: "Write a concise Bash script for setting up an automated daily PostgreSQL database backup using pg_dump and cron on a Linux server, with error handling via logging and 7-day retention by deleting older backups."
ctrl+c / ctrl+v
Yeah that definitely took me an hour or two.
So your backups are written to the same disk?
> datacenter goes up in flames
> 3-2-1 backups: 3 copies on 2 different types of media with at least 1 copy off-site. No off-site copy.
Whoops!