4 ms·

It depends on what you need to do. - If you use Amazon for fail-over purposes then their cost cannot be beat since you are effectively only paying them for the

It depends on what you need to do. - If you use Amazon for fail-over purposes then their cost cannot be beat since you are effectively only paying them for the few hours a year that you system is down (if at all). Same story if you can just use them to shave peaks off your load a few hours a week. - On the other hand: if your base load is similar to what you could run on a 1U rack server then it's obviously much cheaper to run that yourself rather than using AWS

ssmoot 16y ago
That first bit only works if you're already backing up to AWS. Moving terra-bytes of data into the cloud isn't quick and spinning up servers quickly isn't something that's going to help if your primary site goes down for many (most?) types of applications. The bottle-neck isn't the provisioning speed. I can run a few shell scripts and have a new local VM in a couple minutes. Less if I cared to. That doesn't get media or databases from here to there though.