I'm constantly surprised at how much deployments cost. AWS makes it easy to spin up servers, so people do, and they have tens of machines sitting idle when one would do. It seems that people saw containers and thought "finally, each instance can easily have its own machine", whereas I've always thought of containers as tools for putting many things on the same machine.
I run a Dokku instance on a Hetzner server and it's been fantastic, I host 10-20 of my projects with thousands of daily users there without it even breaking a sweat. My only regret is that I should have used a single database instead of one DB per project, but I was lazy.
Sorry old timer, servers are cattle now. Actually more like Shmoos: so abundant as to be almost free. And if a server is 90% reliable, each additional server adds an additional 9 of reliability. So it always makes sense to plan for more than one, or even two, servers.
A five minute outage of the point-of-sale system during the lunch rush can easily cost even the smallest of restaurants several hundred dollars.
True, most websites do not have this problem, because most websites do not drive revenue like that. There are plenty of use cases where you need five nines, but only within limited not-24/7 time windows.
Two servers... still doesn't need Kubernetes.
Re:Bare Metal K8s Clustering at Scale
by coffeesn0b on Tuesday July 03, 2018 @01:18PM
(#17451969)
It's actually 3 nodes, with plans to expand out to more based on workload.
I am a grumpy grey beard no doubt but I still maintain: most websites do not need more than a single server -- certainly not more than a single database server. And, for most, a few hundred dollar dedidcated server is aplenty. Apply YAGNI until blue in the face.