3 ms·
Cost. We have six production nodes sitting behind a load balancer at three sites. That's 18 total nodes, all of which we're paying to run on Windows Server. I
by UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
Cost.
We have six production nodes sitting behind a load balancer at three sites. That's 18 total nodes, all of which we're paying to run on Windows Server.
If we could run these 18 nodes on Linux, even with the associated support contract, we could see significant savings. All of this is a drop in the ocean compared to our database costs (we're using a massive Oracle database) but the savings could be enough for an extra employee.
You can argue the pros/cons of .Net in general, but we find it allows us fairly good productivity. We've also moved a lot of front-end logic into HTML/JS/CSS so if we ever moved platforms we aren't as tied, but right now MVC/EF is working fine.
- jdcskillet 10y agoThis a million times over. We have a very similar environment except you can add in a mainframe and a few MS SQL Servers in addition to the ridiculously expensive Oracle stuff. However, the cost of moving VERY productive .Net staff to something else would be even more expensive. So for now, we just wait and see (while running a .net framework version 2 years out of compliance).