5 ms·
Way cheaper. Amazon is a middleman for hardware. Even at smallest scales the cost of buying a server pays off within a year. In exchange you get convenience a
by gnarbarian 10y ago
Way cheaper. Amazon is a middleman for hardware. Even at smallest scales the cost of buying a server pays off within a year. In exchange you get convenience and the ability to scale up on demand without buying more hardware.
- pbhjpbhj 10y agoI'm sure buying the server pays off, but what about running and administering it? What's the minimum commercially you'd spend to get cross-continent redundancy on hardware you manage in-house. Just the accounting cost of paying wages for technicians in two countries probably means you need to be a quite large company. There are middle grounds, managed co-location say, but then you're not likely to save much over using AWS are you?
- amazon_not 10y agoEven managed co-location is cheaper than AWS when you factor in the egress bandwidth charges at scale. Another way to do it is to use dedicated servers. The datacenter will take care of repairs and remote hands functions and all you need is to manage the server from the OS level upwards. No need to have technicians in multiple countries, everything can be done remotely.
- gnarbarian 10y agoYep this is what we do. It works well.
- gnarbarian 10y agoYou still have to manage/ administor the aws instance. It only really saves you from the overhead involved with hardware failures.