• dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It could be their own cloud. I refer to my VPSes as “the cloud” even though that’s still self-hosting. My “cloud storage” would just be a 10TB storage VPS I’ve got.

      • Entropy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t like the use of the word cloud, makes it sound like some mystical virtual environment in the sky that anyone can use and it just works.

        It’s someone else’s computer, nothing more

        • tal@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I broadly agree that “cloud” has an awful lot of marketing fluff to it, as with many previous buzzwords in information technology.

          However, I also think that there was legitimately a shift from a point in time where one got a physical box assigned to them to the point where VPSes started being a thing to something like AWS. A user really did become increasingly-decoupled from the actual physical hardware.

          With a physical server, I care about the actual physical aspects of the machine.

          With a VPS, I still have “a VPS”. It’s virtualized, yeah, but I don’t normally deal with them dynamically.

          With something like AWS, I’m thinking more in terms of spinning up and spinning down instances when needed.

          I think that it’s reasonable to want to describe that increasing abstraction in some way.

          Is it a fundamental game-changer? In general, I don’t think so. But was there a shift? Yeah, I think so.

          And there might legitimately be some companies for which that is a game-changer, where the cost-efficiencies of being able to scale up dynamically to handle peak load on a service are so important that it permits their service to be viable at all.

    • Carlos Solís@communities.azkware.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      My case is a variant of that - I used to host on a VPS, but the storage available was extremely expensive for, say, more than 16 GB. Tired of having to trim data literally daily, I went and purchased a home server with all the storage I would need. The problem? My home internet, being residential, is behind CG-NAT (not even a dynamic IP!), and that means renting a (much cheaper) VPS solely to expose my server to the open internet with a static IP.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        For exposing your server to the internet, a $10/year 512MB RAM VPS would be more than enough. You can also get VPSes with way more storage for a reasonable price, especially during Black Friday. The VPS I’m hosting Lemmy and Mastodon on has 99GB disk space and is only $33/year, but that was part of a limited sale.