[HN Gopher] The first Oxide rack being prepared for customer shi... ___________________________________________________________________ The first Oxide rack being prepared for customer shipment Author : jclulow Score : 198 points Date : 2023-07-01 16:47 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (hachyderm.io) (TXT) w3m dump (hachyderm.io) | vira28 wrote: | Super excited to see more companies owning hardware vs renting | (aka cloud). | | Somewhat related if you are interested on companies which heavily | uses on-Prem check out | | https://github.com/viggy28/awesome-onprem | pkaye wrote: | What operating system do they use? | steveklabnik wrote: | A modern rack contains many computers. We use both our own lil | embedded OS, Hubris, as well as our own illumos distribution | named Helios. | | None of this is exposed directly to the customer, though. You | run VMs with whatever you want. | mindentropy wrote: | Pardon my knowledge but isn't this the same as what is being | done on the IBM Z Mainframe? | steveklabnik wrote: | In some sense, but not in others. This is an x86 box. | 71a54xd wrote: | Why is this better than a normal k8's distribution or just | buying vm's from Amazon for someone who doesn't need high | security or other boutique features? | steveklabnik wrote: | It may be, it may not be! The main differential in those | cases is that you're not owning the hardware, you're | renting it. That is very important for some people, and not | so much for others. It depends on what you're doing. | slavapestov wrote: | Why do you use Illumos? | count wrote: | A sizable portion of their team and leadership is former | Sun / Solaris / Illumos dev folks. It's their 'native' | OS/platform. | steveklabnik wrote: | Many people at Oxide have been working with it and its | predecessors for an extremely long time. It is a platform | that is very well known to us. | xorcist wrote: | I truly and honestly hope you succeed. I know for certain | that the market for on-prem will remain large for certain | sectors for the forseeable future. | | However. The kind of customer who spends this type of | money can be conservative. They already have to go with | on an unknown vendor, and rely on unknown hardware. Then | they end up with a hypervisor virtually no one else in | the same market segment uses. | | Would you say that KVM or ESXi would be an easier or | harder sell here? | | Innovation budget can be a useful concept. And I'm afraid | it's being stretched a lot. | [deleted] | nubinetwork wrote: | > None of this is exposed directly to the customer, though | | What about security updates and bug fixes? No platform is | perfect, after all... | | Or what about if (god forbid), you go out of business 5 years | down the line... would the hardware be repurposeable? Or | would it just become a large paperweight? | steveklabnik wrote: | > What about security updates and bug fixes? | | Security is an important part of the product. You'll get | updates. | | > Or what about if (god forbid), you go out of business 5 | years down the line | | All of the software, to the degree that we are able to, is | open source. This is important precisely because you own | the hardware; you as a customer deserve to know what we put | on it. | greyface- wrote: | Who's the lucky customer? | TOGoS wrote: | Anyone want to explain what the heck Oxide is? Based on the | comments it sounds like a biodegradable plastic wrap? | steveklabnik wrote: | I wrote this a while back, does that help? Happy to elaborate. | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30678324 | rvz wrote: | As long as it encourages on-premise self-hosting, this can only | be a good thing. | Devasta wrote: | I'm convinced that if anything is going to reverse the migration | to the cloud, it's Oxide. | | Is there anything in the works for using some of this in a | homelab? Mainframes (unofficially) have Hercules, be good to see | something similar for folks who want to experiment. | syntaxing wrote: | Maybe I'm misunderstanding the product but wouldn't hypervisor | do the same thing for homelab related stuff? You'll have to | provide your own hardware but shouldn't be that difficult. | lwhalen wrote: | Is there a public price list anywhere? | atdrummond wrote: | What really put me off of them (and as a fan of BCantrill and | others there) is this information is highly obfuscated and I | was never reached out to the two times I contacted Oxide to | find out more info (both times on behalf of an org that could | more than pay). | | Still think they'll succeed big but I don't think they've fully | dialed in what is important to people who may be able to pull | the trigger on a decision like this. | bcantrill wrote: | With our apologies, we can't seem to find anything based on | either your HN username or the e-mail address in your | profile. So sorry that it was somehow dropped or otherwise | went into the ether! Would you mind mailing either me (my | first name at oxidecomputer.com) or sales@oxidecomputer.com? | Thanks for your interest (and fandom!) and apologies again! | dijit wrote: | Second this, I was (and am) in a position to pay | substantially for such a system and the few times I reached | out was met with radio silence. | | possibly because I am in Europe and they want to focus on the | NA market, not sure. | bcantrill wrote: | It is true that we are focusing on the North American | market, but we are also not trying to treat the European | market with radio silence; please accept our apologies! We | can't find anything under your HN username or the | information in your HN profile; would you mind mailing | either me (my first name at oxidecomputer.com) or | sales@oxidecomputer.com? With our thanks -- and apologies | again! | dijit wrote: | I will definitely reach out. likely you have me under | jmh@sharkmob.com which was my corporate email address at | the time. Alas, I have moved on from that job. But just | so you know I am not lying. | samcat116 wrote: | This is super cool. I realize a lot of HN folks might not see the | point of this, but it literally saves an entire team of people | for companies. | syntaxing wrote: | Am I standing this correctly? This is a on premise drop in | replacement for your cloud service like AWS? | anyoneamous wrote: | Not unless you have strictly constrained yourself to using | vanilla VMs and nothing else. | siliconc0w wrote: | From a commodity hardware perspective I'm not sure there is much | to be excited about but if it's a meaningful better and cost | competitive IaaS maybe that is exciting. Also you are probably | going to want GPU support which may be hard with their super | customized offering. | | If I were to do a bare metal deployment I'd look at kubernetes + | kubevirt + a software defined storage provider. Then you get a | common orchestration layer for VMs, containers, or other | distribute workloads (ML training/inference) but don't need to | pay the Vmware Tax and you'd be using a common enough primitive | that you can move workloads around to 'burst' to the cheapest | cloud as needed. | bcantrill wrote: | Oxide has been discussed on HN a bunch over the last 3+ years | (e.g., [0][1][2][3][4][5][6][7]), and while nothing is without | its detractors, we have found on balance this community to be | extraordinarily supportive of our outlandishly ambitious project | -- thank you! | | [0] When we started: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21682360 | | [1] On the Changelog podcast: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32037207 | | [2] On our embedded Rust OS, Hubris: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29468969 | | [3] On running Hubris on the PineTime: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30828884 | | [4] On compliance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34730337 | | [5] On our approach to rack-scale networking: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34976444 | | [6] On our _de novo_ hypervisor, Propolis: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30671447 | | [7] On our boot model (and the elimination of the BIOS): | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33145411 | tiffanyh wrote: | Wishing you best of luck. | | Really curious to see if in 2023, Engineered Systems still have | a market in this world of commodity cloud hardware. | zengid wrote: | I highly recommend folks check out the Oxide and Friends calls | on discord, usually on Mondays 5pm PST. More info: | https://oxide.computer/podcasts/oxide-and-friends | | Disclaimer: I am a fan, not affiliated. | Dowwie wrote: | Can you share how software engineers can bring hardware to | market? Fabrication, logistics, manufacturing. What should be | outsourced? Who did you partner with for what? | | Also, congrats. | wmf wrote: | They have discussed that on their podcast: | https://www.youtube.com/@oxidecomputercompany4540 | elishah wrote: | > Oxide has been discussed on HN a bunch over the last 3+ years | ... | | While I don't disbelieve you, I'm sure that I am not the only | one who has never heard of this before now. | | And I'd like to suggest that for such people, half a dozen | links to extremely granular implementation details of one tiny | facet are a lot less useful than a brief description of, like, | what this actually _is._ | doublerebel wrote: | Please don't encourage lazyweb. Plus, this is already being | discussed downthread. | CalChris wrote: | Hubris, Humility and Propolis are open source. Is anyone else | using them? | throw0101a wrote: | Be the outlandish you wish to see in the world. -- Not Gandhi | bch wrote: | The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the | unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to | himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable | man. | | -George Bernard Shaw | sacnoradhq wrote: | The world is an impersonal euphemism for human culture. All | things apart from physics and human nature are dentable. | rcarmo wrote: | Congrats to the entire team. Being a wayward hardware guy | somewhere in telcomland that has followed your progress | throughout the years (and having listened to pretty much every | oxide podcast), I am genuinely happy for you all. | ThinkBeat wrote: | So they reinvented the mainframe with a prettier exterior? | | Their own OS: Check Big tall box: Check Expensive: Check (well no | price list i have seen so far) Proprietary hardware at least | interfaces. (?) upgrades must be bought from the vendor (?) | | Right to repair? | crote wrote: | Not quite. A traditional mainframe is highly integrated, to the | point of allowing hotswapping of CPU and memory. Oxide seems to | be a fairly standard collection of x64 hardware, with a | proprietary management software sauce. | steveklabnik wrote: | Just to expand slightly, "proprietary" in the sense of "built | by us for this computer," but _not_ in the way that free or | open source software developers speak of the word | "proprietary," the vast majority of what we do is MPL | licensed, to the degree that it is actually possbile. | jclulow wrote: | One of our core product goals is to actually allow relatively | hot swapping of individual compute sleds. It's true that each | sled is an x86 server, but there's control software managing | the whole rack as a unit, with live migration of workloads | and replicated storage. The architecture of the whole thing | leans towards treating sleds as essentially like CPU and | memory (and storage) boards in previous generations of large | scale computers like mainframes. | wmf wrote: | It's more like reinventing Sun with an uglier exterior but yes. | sydbarrett74 wrote: | Anyone willing to disclose minimum pricing? Are we talking tens | of thousands? Hundreds? I hate when people say, 'If you have to | ask, you can't afford it.' Please don't be that guy. | wmf wrote: | Based on the components I'm guessing a half million. | shrubble wrote: | 32x EPYC servers, figure $10K/server on a base config = | $320,000 . | | Add in what appears to be, 2x 100Gb Ethernet switches, the | 100Gbps NICs, cabling, other rack hardware; service processors | that allow you to control the servers, whatever amount of NVME | drives, etc. Assembly, burn in, test etc. | | My guess is that a base config would be somewhere between $400K | to $500K but could very definitely go up from there for a | completely "loaded" config. | [deleted] | brucepink wrote: | If you compare an 0xide rack with a standard combo of Dl380s, | Nexus switches, netapp filers and Vmware licences, and look at | the specs page - " 1024TB of raw storage in NVMe" - there's no | way this is tens of thousands and I'd be a bit surprised if it | was in the hundreds either. | sgt wrote: | You're saying this rack might cost a million dollars? | dijit wrote: | a half rack netapp filer can be a half-million dollars by | itself. | sethhochberg wrote: | I'd say there's certainly a chance based on the specs being | quoted. If we do some very rough back-of-napkin math and | figure enterprise grade NVMe storage is something like $100 | per TB, that's plausibly $100k on storage drives alone | andrewstuart wrote: | I didn't understand the business opportunity of Oxide at all. | Didn't make sense to me. | | However if they're aiming at the companies parachuting out of the | cloud back to data centers and on prem then it makes a lot of | sense. | | It's possible that the price comparison is not with comparable | computing devices, but simply with the 9 cents per gigabyte | egress fee from the major clouds. | | If I was marketing director at Oxide I'd focus all messaging on | "9 cents". | fbdab103 wrote: | They sell servers, what does not make sense about it? You can | argue about the specific niche (big enough to run their own | hardware, too small to design their own), but companies need | somewhere to do compute. If nothing else, I love their approach | to rethinking all of the individual software components in the | stack and tossing those things which do not make sense in the | modern era. | crote wrote: | They seem to sell _one set_ of servers, that 's the part that | doesn't make sense. | | Where is this magical company that needs exactly one rack of | exactly one type of server? The _vast_ majority of companies | needing this much compute will also be interested in storage | servers, servers filled with GPUs, special high-RAM nodes, | etc. And at that point you 'll also be using some kind of | router for proper connectivity. | | Why bother going for a proprietary solution from an unproven | company for the regular compute nodes, and forcing yourself | to overcommit by buying it per rack? Why not just get them | from proven vendors? | manicennui wrote: | Because the "proven" vendors suck? | wmf wrote: | Everybody has to start somewhere. I remember when EC2 only | had one kind of VM. | hhh wrote: | I work for a manufacturing company that needs exactly two | types of boxes, generic compute without storage that | connects to a SAN, and GPU based servers. | bri3d wrote: | My take: Oxide is for companies who want to buy compute, | not computers. | | They take the idea of "hyperconvergence" - building a | software platform that's tightly integrated and abstracts | away the Hard Parts of building a big virtualized compute | infrastructure, and "hyperscaling" - building a hardware | platform that's more than the sum of its parts, thanks to | the idea of being able to design cooling, power, etc. at a | rack scale rather than a computer scale. Then they combine | these into a compute-as-a-unit product. | | I, too, am a bit skeptical. I think that they will | absolutely have the "hyperconvergence" side nailed given | their background and goals, but selling an entire rack-at- | a-time solution at the same time will be hard. But I have | high hopes for them as it seems like a very interesting | idea. | Nullabillity wrote: | The question isn't whether anyone fits into that niche, but | why anyone who does would buy this over a plain old off-the- | shelf system. | osti wrote: | Does oxide provide some sort of management software like | openstack on top of the hardware? | steveklabnik wrote: | You interact through the rack via an API, yes. I hesitate to | say "like openstack" because these sorts of systems are huge, | complicated, and what "like" means depends on you know, what | you use. But you do get management software, yes. | grrdotcloud wrote: | That's everything they do I do believe. | isatty wrote: | [flagged] | ultra_nick wrote: | Servers with high quality software integration. These provide the | same value to businesses as Apple devices provide to consumers. | Hopefully they "just work" and eliminate a bunch of Devops | distractions. | | Most hardware companies have terrible software. If Oxide can | handle manufacturing and logistics, then they'll be huge in about | 10 years. | tpurves wrote: | It looks cool, what primary problem does it solve vs AWS? | pizza wrote: | Ownership and control vs rent and managed setup | mbStavola wrote: | Congrats to the Oxide team, this is a massive achievement. | | Now that racks are shipping it'd be awesome to see a top-to- | bottom look at the hardware and software. They've given a lot of | behind the scenes peeks at what they're doing via the Oxide and | Friends podcast, but as far as I'm aware there is no public | information on what it all looks like together. | nickstinemates wrote: | Oxide is such an ambitious project, I am such a fan of the | aesthetic and design and of course transparency of all of the | cool people that work there. | | I'd love to have a rack or two some day! | c7DJTLrn wrote: | I believe that good hardware and software unified into one neat | package can steal customers back from the cloud. Especially in | the current economic conditions where everyone's looking to save | on their server bills. I hope to some day work with Oxide stuff. | anaisbetts wrote: | Congrats to the team, but after hearing about Oxide for literal | years since the beginning of the company and repeatedly reading | different iterations of their landing page, I still don't know | what their product actually _is_. It 's a hypervisor host? Maybe? | So I can host VMs on it? And a network switch? So I can....switch | stuff? | 71a54xd wrote: | It's like an on prem AWS for devs. I don't understand the use | case but the hardware is cool. | electroly wrote: | It's AWS Outposts Rack without the AWS connection. That is, you | get a turnkey rack with the servers, networking, hypervisor, | and support software preconfigured. You plug it into power and | network and it's ready to run your VMs. | | Outposts, too, started with a full-rack configuration only, but | they eventually introduced an individual server configuration | as well. It'll be interesting to see if Oxide eventually | decides to serve the smaller market that doesn't have the scale | for whole-rack-at-a-time. | shrubble wrote: | It is a rack of servers, but, every aspect of it is supposed to | be engineered to include the full list of things that are | needed to make a rack of servers a useful VM hosting setup. So | it includes the networking, connection to the service | processors which allow you to remotely access each server, | other management things, etc. | | Once installed, you plug in the network connection(s) and add | power, then boot up. Then you can add your VMs and start | running them. | steveklabnik wrote: | I wrote this a while back, does that help? Happy to elaborate. | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30678324 | wcerfgba wrote: | I don't really understand how having a larger minimum | purchase unit (entire rack vs rack unit) is a USP. Your | comments explain the emphasis on tighter integration across | the stack, but it doesn't clearly show why this is a benefit. | | What are the problems people are having with existing systems | (like Vxrail), and how does Oxide fix those? What stories are | you hearing? | throw0101a wrote: | > _I don 't really understand how having a larger minimum | purchase unit (entire rack vs rack unit) is a USP._ | | For some organizations cattle-like pizza boxes or chassis | with blade systems are still not cattle-like enough. By | making the management unit the entire rack you can reduce | overhead (at least compared to a rack of individual | servers, even if they are treated like cattle). | | There are vendors that will drop ship entire (multiple) | racks pre-wired and pre-configured for various scenarios | (especially HPC): just provide power, (water) cooling, and | a network uplink. | steveklabnik wrote: | I wouldn't say that a larger purchase unit is a USP; it is | an underlying reason why other USPs are able to be | delivered. This is an engineering focused place, so I | tended to focus on the engineering aspects. | | My sibling commentor just left a great answer to your | second question, so I'll leave that one there :) | noisy_boy wrote: | Seems like Oxide is aiming to be the Apple of the enterprise | hardware (which isn't too surprising given the background of | the people involved - Sun used to be something like that as | were other fully-integrated providers, though granted that | Sun didn't write Unix from scratch). Almost like coming to a | full circle from the days where the hardware and the software | was all done in an integrated fashion before Linux turned-up | and started to run on your toaster. | | From your referenced comment: | | > The rack isn't built in such a way that you can just pull | out a sled and shove it into another rack; the whole thing is | built in a cohesive way. | | > other vendors will sell you a rack, but it's made up of 1U | or 2U servers, not designed as a cohesive whole, but as a | collection of individual parts | | What I'm curious about is how analogous or different is this | cohesiveness to the days where vendors built the complete | system? Is that the main selling point or there are nuances | to it? | steveklabnik wrote: | Apple or Sun are common comparisons, yes :) | | > What I'm curious about is how analogous or different is | this cohesiveness to the days where vendors built the | complete system? | | To be honest, that was before my personal time. I was a kid | in that era, using ultra hand-me-down hardware. I'd | speculate that one large difference is that hardware was | much, much simpler back then. | bcantrill wrote: | The holistic design is certainly a big piece of it. While | we certainly admire aspects of both Apple and Sun (and we | count formerly-Apple and formerly-Sun among our employees), | we would also differentiate ourselves from both companies | in critical dimensions: | | - Oxide is entirely open where Apple is extraordinarily | secretive: all of our software (including the software at | the lowest layers of the stack!) is open source, and we | encourage Oxide employees to talk publicly about their | work. | | - Oxide is taking a systems approach where Sun sold silo'd | components: I have written about this before[0], but Sun | struggled to really build whole systems. For Oxide, we have | made an entire rack-level system that includes both | hardware _and_ software: the abstraction to the operator is | as turn-key elastic infrastructure rather than as a kit | car. | | We have tried to take the best of both companies (and for | that matter, the best of all the companies we have worked) | to deliver what customers want: a holistic system to deploy | and operate on-premises infrastructure. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2287033 | jjav wrote: | Oxide is the only exciting and refreshing technology | product company I know of today. I've been rooting from | the sidelines for years now, I want Oxide to succeed | wildly so I can hopefully be a customer at some point. | anaisbetts wrote: | Perfect - now get that 2nd paragraph on the landing page | somehow! | supriyo-biswas wrote: | For those not in the know, this is what is being talked about[1]. | Congrats to the Oxide team! | | Would love to know what kind of uses this is being put to. In | this age, everyone only talks about the cloud, with its roach | motel model and all. | | [1] https://oxide.computer | api wrote: | The demise of on premise and private data centers is greatly | exaggerated. Few people here do that because the cloud is great | for startups and rapid prototyping. Most on prem beyond small | scale is big established companies. | | There is a minor trend of established companies reconsidering | cloud because it turns out it doesn't really save money if your | work load is well understood and not highly elastic. In fact | cloud is often far more expensive. | CharlesW wrote: | FYI for language pedants like me: It's "on-premises" or "on- | prem". A "premise" is something assumed to be true. | dataangel wrote: | Somebody help me understand the business value. All the tech is | cool but I don't get the business model, it seems deeply | impractical. | | * You buy your own servers instead of renting, which is what most | people are doing now. They argue there's a case for this, but it | seems like a shrinking market. Everything has gone cloud. | | * Even if there are lots of people who want to leave the cloud, | all their data is there. That's how they get you -- it costs | nothing to bring data in and a lot to transfer it out. So high | cost to switch. | | * AWS and others provide tons of other services in their clouds, | which if you depend on you'll have to build out on top of Oxide. | So even higher cost to switch. | | * Even though you bought your own servers, you still have to run | everything inside VMs, which introduce the sort of issues you | would hope to avoid by buying your own servers! Why is this? | Because they're building everything on Illumos (Solaris) which is | for all practical purposes is dead outside Oxide and delivering | questionable value here. | | * Based on blogs/twitter/mastodon they have put a lot of effort | into perfecting these weird EE side quests, but they're not | making real new hardware (no new CPU, no new fabric, etc). I am | skeptical any customers will notice or care and would have not | noticed had they used off the shelf hardware/power setups. | | So you have to be this ultra-bizarre customer, somebody who wants | their own servers, but doesn't mind VMs, doesn't need to migrate | out of the cloud but wants this instead of whatever hardware they | manage themselves now, who will buy a rack at a time, who doesn't | need any custom hardware, and is willing to put up with whatever | off-the-beaten path difficulties are going to occur because of | the custom stuff they've done that's AFAICT is very low value for | the customer. Who is this? Even the poster child for needing on | prem, the CIA is on AWS now. | | I don't get it, it just seems like a bunch of geeks playing with | VC money? | oldtownroad wrote: | Part of the appeal of the cloud over on-premise is that on- | premise is not just expensive, but hard: oxide's product isn't | just on-premise hardware, it's on-premise hardware _that is | easy_*. If on-premise was just expensive, it would be so much | more appealing -- because the cloud is expensive too! | | Most every software engineer has worked in an org where | spending six figures per month on AWS or GCP is totally normal | and acceptable because the alternative, buying hardware, is | this awful scary unknown that could be cheaper but could also | blow the entire company up. If oxide can solve that, suddenly | on-premise becomes much more attractive. | | Yes, people are hooked on the cloud, but not because of data | transfer... because it's easy. | | * well, the first few deployments might not be easy but that's | true of anything new. | thinkmassive wrote: | 100% agree with you | | Also, what this person said :) | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36552245 | dcre wrote: | It is simply false that everything has gone cloud. The whole | argument falls down on the first premise. Also nearly everyone | who owns their own servers still runs VMs on them. | elishah wrote: | > Also nearly everyone who owns their own servers still runs | VMs on them. | | This strikes me as at _least_ as much of a leap as | "everything has gone cloud." | | Containers are... kind of a thing. And while there certainly | are use cases for VMs over containers, they're comparatively | niche. | | This product seems as if it'd be a better fit for every real | use case I've ever seen if it were a prebuilt kubernetes | cluster rather than a prebuilt VM hypervisor. | closeparen wrote: | That's a Silicon Valley bubble perspective. Everything from | your kid's school to your car dealer to your automaker is | VMWare. | faitswulff wrote: | Bandcamp is doing just the opposite and leaving the cloud, in | fact: https://world.hey.com/dhh/why-we-re-leaving-the- | cloud-654b47... | packetslave wrote: | Basecamp (DHH) not Bandcamp (Derek Sivers) | dataangel wrote: | In 15 years of professional experience I've never worked at a | place that uses VMs on the servers they own. They're just | going to run Linux off an image so what's the point? You | might want to look outside your niche. | [deleted] | dijit wrote: | Is this true? I have honestly never worked in any company | >50 people that didnt use VMs on owned hardware. | | IT departments typically love VMs (and vmware)- AD machines | are most often hosted on VMs on VMWare. | tw04 wrote: | >* You buy your own servers instead of renting, which is what | most people are doing now. They argue there's a case for this, | but it seems like a shrinking market. Everything has gone | cloud. | | This is very much not true and seems to be a result of people | in the valley thinking the rest of the world operates like the | valley. In the rest of the world I've found mature businesses | that bought into the "cloud is the best" quickly started doing | the math on their billing rate and realized there is a VERY | small subset of their business that has any reason to be in the | cloud. Actually one of the very best use-cases of public cloud | I've seen is a finance firm that sticks new products into the | cloud until they hit maturity so they can properly right-size | the on-prem permanent home for them. And if those products | never take off, they just move on to the next one. They're | willing to pay a premium for 12-18 months because they can | justify it financially. | | >* Even if there are lots of people who want to leave the | cloud, all their data is there. That's how they get you -- it | costs nothing to bring data in and a lot to transfer it out. So | high cost to switch. | | And yet company's do it all the time. I think you'll again find | mature fortune 500s can do the math on the exit cost vs. | staying cost and quickly justify leaving in a reasonable time | window. | | >* AWS and others provide tons of other services in their | clouds, which if you depend on you'll have to build out on top | of Oxide. So even higher cost to switch. | | And as you've seen plenty of people here point out: most of | those services tend to be overrated. OK, so you've got database | as a service: except now you can't actually tune it to your | specific workload. And $/query, even ignoring performance, is | astronomically higher than building your own and paying a DBA | to manage it unless you're a 2-man startup. | | >* Even though you bought your own servers, you still have to | run everything inside VMs, which introduce the sort of issues | you would hope to avoid by buying your own servers! Why is | this? Because they're building everything on Illumos (Solaris) | which is for all practical purposes is dead outside Oxide and | delivering questionable value here. | | I don't know of a single enterprise that has run anything BUT | VMs for the last decade. Other than Mainframe (which you can | argue is actually just VMs in a different name), and some HFT- | type applications that need the lowest possible latency at all | costs, it's all virtualized. As for Illumos: why do you care? | Oxide is supporting and maintaining it as an appliance. Tape | has been "dead" for 2 decades. FreeBSD has been "dead" since | the early 2000s. It's only dead for people that don't deal with | enterprise IT. | | >* Based on blogs/twitter/mastodon they have put a lot of | effort into perfecting these weird EE side quests, but they're | not making real new hardware (no new CPU, no new fabric, etc). | I am skeptical any customers will notice or care and would have | not noticed had they used off the shelf hardware/power setups. | | I have no doubt they've done their research, and I can tell you | from my industry experience there is a large cross-section of | people who want an easy button. There's a reason why companys | like Nutanix exist and have the market cap they do - but they | could never actually get the whole way there because they got | wrapped up in the "everything is software defined!!!". Which | works really well until you realize that you're left to your | own devices on networking. | | >So you have to be this ultra-bizarre customer, somebody who | wants their own servers, but doesn't mind VMs, doesn't need to | migrate out of the cloud but wants this instead of whatever | hardware they manage themselves now, who will buy a rack at a | time, who doesn't need any custom hardware, and is willing to | put up with whatever off-the-beaten path difficulties are going | to occur because of the custom stuff they've done that's AFAICT | is very low value for the customer. Who is this? Even the | poster child for needing on prem, the CIA is on AWS now. | | I mean no disrespect but I get the impression you haven't ever | worked with a fortune 500 that's outside of the valley. This is | EXACTLY what they all want. They aren't going to run their | entire datacenter on this, but when the datacenter is measured | in hundreds to thousands of servers, they've got plenty of | workloads that it's a perfect fit for | nighmi wrote: | > they're building everything on Illumos (Solaris) | | This is an amazing plus in my eyes. Solaris systems are | amazing. | [deleted] | qingcharles wrote: | Many companies are leaving cloud hosting due to spiraling | costs. Even well-knowns like 37signals: | | https://world.hey.com/dhh/we-have-left-the-cloud-251760fb | | It's nice to have options. Cloud good. Self-hosting good. | Middle options good. | rzzzt wrote: | My mind also jumped to this post. But can you name another | company that did so recently? | sergiotapia wrote: | Cloud was a low interest rate phenomena. I predict a return to | metal servers and managed data centers. | bcantrill wrote: | I'm not sure what "weird EE side quests" you're referring to, | but anyone interested in learning what we've done in terms of | hardware should listen to the team in its own voice, e.g. in | their description of our board bringup.[0] | | [0] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/tales- | from-... | electroly wrote: | Addressing #2 and #3, a "hybrid cloud" architecture can include | a site-to-site VPN or direct fiber connection to a cloud. In | AWS, Direct Connect data transfer pricing effectively makes | your on-prem DC or colocation facility into an availability | zone in your AWS Region. Direct Connect is $0.02/GB egress (out | of AWS) and free ingress (into AWS), which is a better deal | than cross-AZ data transfer within the AWS Region. Cross-AZ | within an AWS Region is effectively $0.02/GB in _both_ | directions. | | This way, you can run your big static workloads on-prem to save | money, and run your fiddly dynamic workloads in AWS and | continue to use S3. | | That said, if a hybrid cloud architecture is your plan and you | desire a managed rack-at-a-time experience, AWS Outposts would | seem to be the safer pick. They've been shipping for years and | they have public pricing that you can look at. I'm not sure | that Oxide specifically has an opening for customers who want | to keep their cloud. I wish them luck. | | https://aws.amazon.com/outposts/rack/pricing/ | lijok wrote: | Well done and congratulations to the Oxide team ! Very excited to | see where this company goes | steveklabnik wrote: | I am extremely proud of everyone at Oxide. It's been a fantastic | place to work, and finally getting to this point feels awesome. | Of course, there is so much more to do... | | For funsies, it's neat to look back at the original announcement | and discussion from four years ago: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21682360 | runlevel1 wrote: | As someone who's worked on on-prem infra automation pretty much | my entire career, I'm rooting for you. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-07-01 23:01 UTC)