4 ms·
I don't understand your concern. Fundamentally, if you have large enough consistent need for storage/VMs/Any non proprietary resource then AWS is not the lowest
by apalmer 11y ago
I don't understand your concern. Fundamentally, if you have large enough consistent need for storage/VMs/Any non proprietary resource then AWS is not the lowest cost option by a long shot. This is not at all a controversial statement.
Even taking into account depreciation, administration, maintenance etc, if you have a large enough consistent need amazon is not the lowest cost option by a significant margin. This isn't a controversial statement.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoRarely do people "get" that if you have a consistent workload or resource need, AWS is more expensive than your own gear.
- scholia 11y agoBut presumably Amazon benefits (saves money) from making more use of hardware resources. It has to have some spare, but not as much spare as a comparable group of non-AWS users would have in total.... Also, presumably, not all the AWS users are awake at the same time ;-)
- beachstartup 11y ago> But presumably Amazon benefits (saves money) from making more use of hardware resources yeah, they sure do.
- ec109685 11y agoThat doesn't have to be true. Amazon or one of their competitors could provide a discount by locking into multi year discounts (e.g. reserved pricing). The cloud providers are in a cut throat business (mitigated somewhat by value added services), so the price will bob along near cost (though they may eak out more profit on some work loads compared to others).