> I don't care about ECC https://blog.codinghorror.com/to-ecc-or-not-to-ecc/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/to-ecc-or-not-to-ecc/ And that's fine. Though as a

> I don't care about ECC https://blog.codinghorror.com/to-ecc-or-not-to-ecc/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/to-ecc-or-not-to-ecc/ And that's fine. Though as a counterpoint: https://louwrentius.com/please-use-zfs-with-ecc-memory.html https://louwrentius.com/please-use-zfs-with-ecc-memory.html > I had hardware raid 5 before and it failed, because I used similar hard drives ( 3 drives failed within a month, wasn't expecting that). Which goes back to my point. You're comparing your home system, with something like one-9's uptime (90% availability over an entire year) with a cloud provider that is going to give you five-9's or better. These are not the same things. And you are going to pay more for each additional 9 of uptime. For your own stuff, yes, of course it can make perfect sense to host it yourself. I've got a personal server running on positively ancient hardware that still manages two-9's availability, and that's fine for my use case. But I wouldn't directly compare that to a cloud provider either.