4 ms·
With 10TB of data, you could also do it a hell of a lot cheaper and faster on premise.
by tw04 10y ago
With 10TB of data, you could also do it a hell of a lot cheaper and faster on premise.
- trhway 10y agoOne engineer/DBA to deal with your cluster is those 330k/year.
- brianwawok 10y agoBaby startups don't have a DBA, they have a dev that kinda knows SQL.
- manigandham 10y agoYou dont really need a full time DBA to handle 10TB these days.
- foobarian 10y agoDon't those computers cost a lot? Like $10k per blade? Granted it's probably amortized but still... On the other hand the Redshift cluster doesn't run itself, despite what Amazon says. You still need at least a part time DBA guy.
- eitland 10y agoLast time I worked with physical servers the rule was to avoid blades and run rackmount until space or termal was an issue. And as long as you were not into GPUs you could get some really decent HP servers at somewhere around $2000 - $7000 depending on your storage needs.
- beachstartup 10y agothere are DBA services that do an excellent job for a fraction of that price. they also do AWS stuff too. full-time DBA's work for either enormous corporations, or database consulting firms. it's very rare you will see some random small-medium company with even one DBA on payroll.
- rad_gruchalski 10y agoIn your part of the world, maybe. The Valley does not reflect average DBA salaries around the world.