4 ms·

Well, in my case described above, single server solutions include an automated backup sub-system, and my servers expect multiple instances of itself to running

Well, in my case described above, single server solutions include an automated backup sub-system, and my servers expect multiple instances of itself to running on the client network, and these multiple instances synchronize with one another via additional endpoints specific for the purpose. The whole issue of HA and backups is critical and one of the areas my approach shines.

cthalupa 7y ago
You're still not actually answering the question of how you are HA and backing things up with only a single physical server and nothing else. If you're backing things up to the same server, that's not enough. If the HA instances are running in the same server, that's not enough. If there are other things besides that one physical server and it's power/network, you didn't include them in the cost, so the comparison is disingenuous there.
- bsenftner 7y ago
  I do say the deployed system ends up being multiple instances of my single server, which synchronize with one another. Those are separate physical devices each running my one server. Additionally, when a backup runs the data is stored locally as well as on a physical storage device separate from the hardware it is running. Typically clients already have a firewall/router which is used to distribute requests to the various instances. My deployed systems are not one server, they become a server mesh.
  - cthalupa 7y ago
    >. Those are separate physical devices each running my one server. Additionally, when a backup runs the data is stored locally as well as on a physical storage device separate from the hardware it is running. Typically clients already have a firewall/router which is used to distribute requests to the various instances. Awesome! Really glad to hear this is the case. But those are all added costs beyond the single physical server you gave the price of. Server cost * number of physical servers you have deployed Cost of your off-server storage Cost of your network appliance doing load balancing It's still probably way less than the AWS bill, but it's not really fair to compare the total price of infrastructure in one environment vs. just a portion of the other.

cthalupa 7y ago

You're still not actually answering the question of how you are HA and backing things up with only a single physical server and nothing else. If you're backing things up to the same server, that's not enough. If the HA instances are running in the same server, that's not enough. If there are other things besides that one physical server and it's power/network, you didn't include them in the cost, so the comparison is disingenuous there.

bsenftner 7y ago
I do say the deployed system ends up being multiple instances of my single server, which synchronize with one another. Those are separate physical devices each running my one server. Additionally, when a backup runs the data is stored locally as well as on a physical storage device separate from the hardware it is running. Typically clients already have a firewall/router which is used to distribute requests to the various instances. My deployed systems are not one server, they become a server mesh.
- cthalupa 7y ago
  >. Those are separate physical devices each running my one server. Additionally, when a backup runs the data is stored locally as well as on a physical storage device separate from the hardware it is running. Typically clients already have a firewall/router which is used to distribute requests to the various instances. Awesome! Really glad to hear this is the case. But those are all added costs beyond the single physical server you gave the price of. Server cost * number of physical servers you have deployed Cost of your off-server storage Cost of your network appliance doing load balancing It's still probably way less than the AWS bill, but it's not really fair to compare the total price of infrastructure in one environment vs. just a portion of the other.