4 ms·
if the choice is "let's deploy software on AWS," vs "let's build an AWS work-a-like and then deploy software on it," it'll always be easier to use AWS. Managin
by rrmm 11y ago
if the choice is "let's deploy software on AWS," vs "let's build an AWS work-a-like and then deploy software on it," it'll always be easier to use AWS. Managing physical servers is a pain.
I've been in a similar situation in a small research group, but AWS doesn't fly for privacy and regulatory reasons. Managing hardware and infrastructure is a huge amount of overhead that doesn't directly relate to the core mission.
- vidarh 11y ago> if the choice is "let's deploy software on AWS," vs "let's build an AWS work-a-like and then deploy software on it," it'll always be easier to use AWS Yes, but that's a false equivalence. You don't need an AWS work-a-like unless you plan on competing with AWS. So much of AWS is dedicated to doing things you don't need to do in most single tenant systems. But if managing hardware and infrastructure is a huge amount of overhead, what in the world are you doing? If it's more than sliding a server into a rack, hooking up network and power, and leaving it to itself until/unless there are hardware failures or SMART alerts, then you've missed out on automation steps somewhere. For server environments I set up, I spend perhaps on average 30m per server in a datacentre per year, including travel. On top of that we estimate on average perhaps 10m of remote hands per server per year.