4 ms·
The cost per query difference of cloud versus bare metal, in the article is over ten times. That kind of margin gives a lot of room for error. You could literal
by eloff 6y ago
The cost per query difference of cloud versus bare metal, in the article is over ten times. That kind of margin gives a lot of room for error. You could literally over provision by an order of magnitude and come out on top.
There's plenty of hidden costs though of doing this yourself that need a certain level of scale to pay off. Like people to manage the hardware, that's a big one.
Still renting bare metal servers from e.g. Packet could make much more sense even for small companies than using AWS.
- zkirill 6y agoAre there any services that help you buy the bare metal outright, set it up at a colo, and maintain it for you?
- watsocd 6y agorenting small servers...much more sense even for small companies No. At one time over 10 years ago, I had a dedicated server with one of the hosting companies. They charged me $225/month. I moved to AWS and my cost dropped to ~$30/month. Even now, 10 years later, my total AWS bill for primarily EC2 and RDS services that runs an application that pays my bills is ~$75 per month. If my company suddenly went viral and had a bunch of new customers, I could scale up instantly.
- eloff 6y agoI'm not talking about hobby projects, which also aren't a great fit for AWS. Use digital ocean, vultr, or linode. I'm talking about startups with over $10k/year in spend.
- dragonwriter 6y agoAWS (and ditto with the other major public clouds) can be a great fit for hobby projects because they can often fit in the free tier.
- beatrobot 6y agoIf you don't use any outgoing data transfer or just a little, it could make sense for smb.