5 ms·

The AWS pricing page for this service says it costs about $225/month for a lightly used instance. I implemented the same kind of thing on AWS using a nano-sized

The AWS pricing page for this service says it costs about $225/month for a lightly used instance. I implemented the same kind of thing on AWS using a nano-sized instance for about $10/month. The instance is managed with an Ansible Role for automated SFTP server management. I connected it with an off-the-shelf AWS Lamda function which listens for S3 PUT events and copies files to the SFTP server as needed. My solution took a little more human-time to setup than the AWS service might, but once setup, it saves about $200/month.

scarface74 8y ago
$200 a month is nothing for a business. Anything that we don't have to manage ourselves or worry about reliability, scalability, and we can just use our AWS business support plan is a win.
- secabeen 8y ago
  In large business, sure. In small business and education, a $200/mo commitment could easily require approval by the owner or the department chair.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    The alternative is developer time. Nothing about managed services is ever less expensive if you don’t account for developer/Devops/netops time saved. A small company has even more of reason to want as many managed services as possible. You can avoid hiring netops if you both have a third party managed service provider to manage your network and you have developers/architects who know enough to fill in the gaps.
    - abraae 8y ago
      > Nothing about managed services is ever less expensive if you don’t account for developer/Devops/netops time saved. I literally can't parse this.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        Let me try again. Baremetal vs Cloud hosting -> resource for resource baremetal will almost always end up being cheaper. The only way you save money on managed services is the cost of management. Meaning every hour that someone doesn't have to spend maintaining infrastructure is a cost savings to the business. Every minute saved by allowing someone else to do the "undifferentiated heavy lifting" is money saved.
      - Spooky23 8y ago
        Translation: Puppies are cheap, but they eat and poop.
    - jrochkind1 8y ago
      On the other hand, netops staff costs are a lot less... is liquid the right word? Yes, $200/month is probably not any more than a couple hours/month of even a very lowly paid developer or ops person, once you account for benefits and overhead. But once you needed to hire that person for any reason... their annual salary is already on the books. Giving them more work to do doesn't affect your budget. But another $2400 a year might. Yeah, if you can avoid hiring that person _at all_... but you probably had some reason you did have to hire a person or three already, and now you've got them. The actual experience of working in a small under-resourced organization, in my experience, often looks like this.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        That’s why you don’t hire them at all. You use an MSP. Even if you do need someone on prem, the simpler you make your infrastructure, the less skilled your netops person has to be. You can hire someone who basically is a help desk person. When that one netops person leaves, it usually falls on the developers to manage it.

scarface74 8y ago

$200 a month is nothing for a business. Anything that we don't have to manage ourselves or worry about reliability, scalability, and we can just use our AWS business support plan is a win.

secabeen 8y ago
In large business, sure. In small business and education, a $200/mo commitment could easily require approval by the owner or the department chair.
- scarface74 8y ago
  The alternative is developer time. Nothing about managed services is ever less expensive if you don’t account for developer/Devops/netops time saved. A small company has even more of reason to want as many managed services as possible. You can avoid hiring netops if you both have a third party managed service provider to manage your network and you have developers/architects who know enough to fill in the gaps.
  - abraae 8y ago
    > Nothing about managed services is ever less expensive if you don’t account for developer/Devops/netops time saved. I literally can't parse this.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      Let me try again. Baremetal vs Cloud hosting -> resource for resource baremetal will almost always end up being cheaper. The only way you save money on managed services is the cost of management. Meaning every hour that someone doesn't have to spend maintaining infrastructure is a cost savings to the business. Every minute saved by allowing someone else to do the "undifferentiated heavy lifting" is money saved.
    - Spooky23 8y ago
      Translation: Puppies are cheap, but they eat and poop.
  - jrochkind1 8y ago
    On the other hand, netops staff costs are a lot less... is liquid the right word? Yes, $200/month is probably not any more than a couple hours/month of even a very lowly paid developer or ops person, once you account for benefits and overhead. But once you needed to hire that person for any reason... their annual salary is already on the books. Giving them more work to do doesn't affect your budget. But another $2400 a year might. Yeah, if you can avoid hiring that person _at all_... but you probably had some reason you did have to hire a person or three already, and now you've got them. The actual experience of working in a small under-resourced organization, in my experience, often looks like this.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      That’s why you don’t hire them at all. You use an MSP. Even if you do need someone on prem, the simpler you make your infrastructure, the less skilled your netops person has to be. You can hire someone who basically is a help desk person. When that one netops person leaves, it usually falls on the developers to manage it.