Beehaw - Open Collective
opencollective.com
Creating a safe online social news aggregator

hey folks, here’s another meta-post. this one isn’t specifically in response to the massive surge of users, but the surge is fortuitously timed because i’ve been intending to give a good idea of what our financial stability is like. as a reminder, we’re 100%-user funded. everything you donate to us specifically goes to the website, or any outside labor we pay to do something for us.

thanks to your generous support, we’re pretty confident we have passed our current break-even point for this month, at which we wouldn’t eventually need to pay out of our own pockets to keep the site running. that point in our estimation is about $26 a month or $312 a year. (please ignore OC’s estimated yearly budget–we don’t determine it lol)

our expenses are currently:

  • $18/mo toward our host, Digital Ocean. (yesterday we upgraded from DO’s $12 tier to its $18 tier to mitigate traffic issues and lag, and it’s really worked out!)
  • $2/mo for weekly backups
  • $4/mo for daily snapshots of the website, which would allow us to restore the website in between the weekly backups if need be.

for a total of at least $26/mo in expenses. this may vary from month to month though, so we’re baking in a bit of uncertainty with our estimation.

we currently have, for the month of June:

  • $70/mo in recurring donations (at least for June)
  • $200 this month in one-time donations

for a total of $270 this month. our total balance now stands at $331.31.

that balance means we now have about a year months of reserves currently, if we received no other donations and have no unexpected expenses.[1] the recurring donations put us well into the green at this point.

this is good! everything past our break-even point each month is, to be clear, money we can save and put toward scaling up our infrastructure. there is no downside to donating after we’ve already met our “goal” of basic financial stability. doing so will have pretty straightforward practical implications for you: fewer 500s, 503s, better image support (this takes a lot of space!), and the website generally being run on more than potato hardware.[2] if you’d like to do so in light of this information, our OpenCollective page is this post’s link. thanks folks!

  1. we will have at least one upcoming expense but its size is TBD, and so is how we’ll pay for it ↩︎

  2. especially during times like now, where we’ve likely been getting thousands or tens of thousands of hits an hour ↩︎

    • @TheTrueLinuxDev@beehaw.org
      8•11 months ago

      Auto-scaling comes with its trade-offs. It can lull users into a false sense of security, leading them to believe that all configurations will seamlessly scale up. However, even with managed databases, there are inherent limitations and the need for architectural changes to support a larger-scale infrastructure. While auto-scaling provides a robust system for managing overhead and mitigating the efforts involved in scaling, there are potential risks and hidden costs.

      One significant risk is the misjudgment of traffic or the inadvertent scaling up caused by a software bug. This could escalate the demand for more computing servers indefinitely, limited only by your budget. In contrast, self-hosting, despite its higher administrative complexity, offers more opportunities to cut costs associated with cloud usage.

      As with most things, different approaches have their pros and cons. I am simply offering alternative ideas for those interested in exploring other options.