Because some people here do exactly the same thing with aws/cloud. Not you but many here treat aws like it’s the thing you should use ‘because scaling and failover and omg 1 sec downtime’. And then the stories like OP showing that it is dangerous and my experience that most who do this are overpaying and could do with a hetzner server or, better even, a $5/mo vps, even if they do it right (which they are not, generally from all setups I have seen).

I agree with you though on the case by case.

Obviously the billing mechanism (or, lack of control) is an issue but that doesn't negate the whole concept. They could (and should) easily fix this by implementing hard caps to activate if so required.

Nobody says there isn't any use case for AWS. The point is that "the cool kids" like to start their side projects on AWS. Nothing about it is mission critical. I guarantee you op is not working on some Fintech stuff.

How's that bad? Isn't this how we all learned? By playing with cool modern technology?

I feel like learning how to configure bird, bind, haproxy, rdbms clusters, redundant MXs, etc. has taught me far more than spinning up equivalent virtual infrastructure on a public cloud would have. Getting to play with the underlying FOSS technologies is far more rewarding to me than using the commercialized versions on someone else's stack. Plus it helps me evaluate and architect my products for competing clouds, rather than my "knowledge and understanding" being tied to one particular vendor's offerings & lexicon. (Another advantage of knowing the underpinnings of a cloud is that it makes reading post-mortems[1] with a morning coffee so much more enjoyable.)

Assuming we're talking about side-projects/hobbyist development: when I'm doing that I want as few variable expenses as possible, and they usually don't require the purported benefits of the cloud. If such a project needs to scale: I'll bolt it onto a cloud at that point, or sprinkle in specific services to address the pain points.

[1]: https://tritondatacenter.com/blog/manta-postmortem-7-27-2015

> I feel like learning how to configure bird, bind, haproxy, rdbms clusters, redundant MXs, etc. has taught me far more than spinning up equivalent virtual infrastructure on a public cloud would have.

I agree with this, but the choice of what other individuals play with is not ours to make. There's still countless of youngsters working on bare metal, for whatever it's worth, they just grow up in a world with a lot of existing abstractions now.

> Assuming we're talking about side-projects/hobbyist development: when I'm doing that I want as few variable expenses as possible, and they usually don't require the purported benefits of the cloud. If such a project needs to scale: I'll bolt it onto a cloud at that point, or sprinkle in specific services to address the pain points.

100%, but the choice is free for anyone themselves to make. OP is furthering his knowledge and experience in a very specialised and highly sought after sector. Maybe he'll come to the same conclusion at some point, or maybe he comes from bare metal and has different perspectives now and thinks that redundancy is always awesome.

Pretty easy, OP sounds exactly like a guy who would have been perfectly fine with a single (Hetzner) server. Then these arguments popup and they are most of the time right. I agree with you, that it always depends on the use. However, hurr durr Hetzner Server seems to be the more reasonable choice here (once again).

OP here.

Hetzner provides incredibly beefy machines for a good price.

I’ve been managing 2 machine cluster setup in the past using Hetzner and it worked fine.

Unfortunately I have had an incident with one machine going bad unexpectedly(RAM issue) and I was forced to spend whole day setting up a new one.

Why? If you had the choice between complete redundancy and infinite scaling by default while having almost zero work, or using a dedicated server that you need to configure and constantly maintain, what would you choose?

If with one thing, a single mistake can result in a $5k bill, and with the other I have a guaranteed fixed bill of 50 bucks a month, then unless I have enough money to burn, the choice is crystal clear. Maybe you wipe your butt with 100$ bills. Others aren't that lucky.

Exactly; if it is ‘the same’ but with a guarantee of max 50$/mo then sure, I would pick that, but that is not the case, also not with caps. So it is an entirely different case and usually the 50$ option actually brings you very far without any financial risk outside that $50/mo.

The choice is only crystal clear until AWS etc implement hard caps to activate if needed. Then having some Lambda functions is not only exponentially cheaper than a whole dedicated server and by default highly available and redundant, but also equally as safe financially wise.