3 ms·
Must be extremely part-time, for $10k/year total cost.
by fisherjeff 8y ago
Must be extremely part-time, for $10k/year total cost.
- Scoundreller 8y agoThey're hiring a share of colo staff. It's a comparison to AWS, so everything that you install/do/operate on that server is extra in both cases.
- Spivak 8y agoI mean $10k/yr/server doesn't sound too unreasonable. Just sounds really bad when you're only looking at one server. $100k/yr total compensation (i.e. 60k-ish salary) for someone babysit 10 servers isn't super unreasonable.
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y agoHeck, I'd take that job! ...seriously, any chance that's a real thing? Sounds better than what I do now.
- vidarh 8y agoYes, sort of. You can find people with small-ish number of servers that will pay stupid money to have someone on-call when you count on a per server basis. In practice it's a nice side-gig, but you'll tend to need several of them, as people do understand they're paying a premium to have you accessible, and do expect to pay (substantially) less per server if they have more of them. In practice this will tend to include out of ours availability and/or devops type work, not just low level sysadmin stuff or physical maintenance, as a lot of that can be farmed out to "remote hands" at the colo providers on hourly rates with 24/7 availability and will certainly cost a tiny fraction of that $10k/year.
- cferr 8y agoI make just a couple of k's more than that to babysit a dozen. It's a thing.
- vidarh 8y agoIf a single server requires anywhere close to that in sysadmin time per year, it is broken or the sysadmin in question is incompetent, or we're talking a supercomputer of much greater complexity than this thing. To me it seems like a very conservative estimate, or allowing for said sysadmin to provide a lot of valueadd services (e.g. devops type services) that you'll typically need for a cloud setup as well.