5 ms·

You can buy sysadmin services. This isn't a full time job at that level.

Klathmon 9y ago
Then you are just trading one fee for another, but the "sysadmin services" you are ordering most likely has slower response time, less resources, less knowledge, and worse uptime guarantees than someone like aws. Yeah, at the larger sizes it might make sense, but not for everyone.
- dismantlethesun 9y ago
  At smaller sizes too. If you just have one server, it's unlikely that the slower response time will loose you 3000 dollars per month which is the savings of dedicated service versus aws. Many small businesses run on leased hardware with on site support. Rackspace for instance made their fortune in that sector.
- baudehlo 9y ago
  Well you're not comparing to AWS without ops, you're comparing to hiring someone for non-AWS vs managing AWS on your own. Outsourced ops know your systems. They have contracted guarantees. They can manage your own systems, hosted systems or even AWS. Using not-AWS saves you enough to pay for that.
  - jason_pomerleau 9y ago
    > Outsourced ops know your systems. I worked for a MSP for many years, and was well acquainted with our regional competitors. Our uptime and theirs was nowhere near AWS-level. You're getting a different engineer every time you pick up the phone. They most certainly do not know your systems like an internal team would. I regularly saw cascading/circular issues caused by lack of familiarity and/or poor change management. Owning and administering your own iron makes sense at a certain scale, but it's a much bigger scale than most companies will reach.
- qaq 9y ago
  Nope you have a number for the person that provides the service and you can call her/him. Unless you are at several million per month spend at AWS have fun getting a hold of someone when sh#t hits the fan.
  - late2part 9y ago
    Good luck hiring someone on a demand hourly basis that knows your stuff and won't break your stuff.
    - qaq 9y ago
      Hmm never had an issue, but to have people at AWS that know my stuff would start somewhere north of 100 million a year spend on AWS.

Then you are just trading one fee for another, but the "sysadmin services" you are ordering most likely has slower response time, less resources, less knowledge, and worse uptime guarantees than someone like aws. Yeah, at the larger sizes it might make sense, but not for everyone.

dismantlethesun 9y ago
At smaller sizes too. If you just have one server, it's unlikely that the slower response time will loose you 3000 dollars per month which is the savings of dedicated service versus aws. Many small businesses run on leased hardware with on site support. Rackspace for instance made their fortune in that sector.
baudehlo 9y ago
Well you're not comparing to AWS without ops, you're comparing to hiring someone for non-AWS vs managing AWS on your own. Outsourced ops know your systems. They have contracted guarantees. They can manage your own systems, hosted systems or even AWS. Using not-AWS saves you enough to pay for that.
- jason_pomerleau 9y ago
  > Outsourced ops know your systems. I worked for a MSP for many years, and was well acquainted with our regional competitors. Our uptime and theirs was nowhere near AWS-level. You're getting a different engineer every time you pick up the phone. They most certainly do not know your systems like an internal team would. I regularly saw cascading/circular issues caused by lack of familiarity and/or poor change management. Owning and administering your own iron makes sense at a certain scale, but it's a much bigger scale than most companies will reach.
qaq 9y ago
Nope you have a number for the person that provides the service and you can call her/him. Unless you are at several million per month spend at AWS have fun getting a hold of someone when sh#t hits the fan.
- late2part 9y ago
  Good luck hiring someone on a demand hourly basis that knows your stuff and won't break your stuff.
  - qaq 9y ago
    Hmm never had an issue, but to have people at AWS that know my stuff would start somewhere north of 100 million a year spend on AWS.