3 ms·

I’m not the right person to estimate cost savings, but in my experience these choices go in a cycle: 1. Startups use aws /digital ocean because its so easy and

I’m not the right person to estimate cost savings, but in my experience these choices go in a cycle: 1. Startups use aws /digital ocean because its so easy and $5-10/month isn’t much 2. Startup or consultancy with traction: either you have too many projects or they start getting real traffic so the instances sizes and bandwidth / storage costs grow 3. Small company: You realize self hosting is probably cheaper and the machines are way faster self hosted 4. Medium size company: You self host and seem be saving money, but eventually you scale to need a team to support the infrastructure itself 5. Large company / enterprise: You go back to aws because the costs are high, but that is still preferable to having a bad version of aws written adhoc internally :) For you it probably doesn’t matter as you’re probably 1-3 above. So it mostly depends on if you like managing infrastructure yourself. The cost savings are likely there, but only if it’s easy and fun for you to support it

karmakaze 5y ago
There's more: 6. you have so much infrastructure that it's a large factor and you want more control so you create your in-house cloud (or compete with cloud providers and can't trust using it) 7. you have so much infrastructure that you offer it as a service I worked at a company that had a mix of 4 and 5. The advantage of 5 was the dynamic scaling and integration with other offerings (e.g. AWS DynamoDB, SQS, Lambda, etc). The provisioning and monitoring of hosts was about the same with bringing up new hosts slightly easier on AWS. Provisioning large additional capacity needed more planning as it wasn't delivered same day, especially for the largest configurations. Raw performance was something else though with battery-backup caching (important so you can skip write-thru sync and still flush after power loss) hardware RAID NVMe's configured to spec.

karmakaze 5y ago

There's more: 6. you have so much infrastructure that it's a large factor and you want more control so you create your in-house cloud (or compete with cloud providers and can't trust using it) 7. you have so much infrastructure that you offer it as a service I worked at a company that had a mix of 4 and 5. The advantage of 5 was the dynamic scaling and integration with other offerings (e.g. AWS DynamoDB, SQS, Lambda, etc). The provisioning and monitoring of hosts was about the same with bringing up new hosts slightly easier on AWS. Provisioning large additional capacity needed more planning as it wasn't delivered same day, especially for the largest configurations. Raw performance was something else though with battery-backup caching (important so you can skip write-thru sync and still flush after power loss) hardware RAID NVMe's configured to spec.