4 ms·
I hear the AWS argument quite a bit, but am not quite sure if the costs of AWS vs. independent infrastructure have been appropriately analyzed by the person mak
by beams_of_light 9y ago
I hear the AWS argument quite a bit, but am not quite sure if the costs of AWS vs. independent infrastructure have been appropriately analyzed by the person making the accusation, in many cases. Independent infrastructure ages and requires updating as time goes on. Amazon normalizes those costs and provides the billed entity with semi-predictable costs on an ongoing basis. Keep in mind the costs of power, cooling, and bandwidth as well.
- lossolo 9y ago> I hear the AWS argument quite a bit, but am not quite sure if the costs of AWS vs. independent infrastructure have been appropriately analyzed by the person making the accusation, in many cases. I would pay around 8x times more if I would use AWS instead of dedicated servers. > in many cases. Independent infrastructure ages and requires updating as time goes on. That's why you use dedicated servers unless you are really huge (then you go with your hardware) or have specific requirements. In 99% other cases you use dedicated servers which are refreshed by data centers with newer hardware then you just switch (if you really need it...).
- falcolas 9y agoGood accountants can amortize the costs of servers (etc.) just as well as AWS can. > Keep in mind the costs of power, cooling, and bandwidth as well. And it will still probably be cheaper to host your own, with one caveat: if you have wildly varying traffic loads, AWS' autoscaling is hard to beat. The reality is, though, most companies don't have traffic loads which vary enough to justify the extra costs.