> Containers don’t get you more host machines racked or more disk shelves added to the SAN. That's immaterial to the discussion, and reads like a non-sequitur.

> Containers don’t get you more host machines racked or more disk shelves added to the SAN. That's immaterial to the discussion, and reads like a non-sequitur. You want a service. You deploy the service in your infrastructure. If necessary, you scale your infrastructure to meet demand. That's it. If you want to spin up a database instance, just do it. With containerization that takes between minutes and seconds. And to drive the point home, in case you're not aware, AWS is not the only cloud provider that offers horizontal autoscaling. Some small providers even sell it out of the box, both through their Kubernetes offerings and/or through their own APIs. Also, the sales brochure for managed services mentions scalability and reliability, and in the case of AWS also global deployments, but the truth of the matter is that it costs a hefty premium and in most cases it's totally irrelevant. So, pointing out databases in practical terms means close to nothing. > I literally can’t afford to invest to the level that AWS can to run operations. And that's perfectly fine because a) AWS really is not full proof (see the latest outage of AWS's US-WEST-2 region which might have single-handedly dropped AWS's reliability to only 99.5 this year), b) operating your own infra already gets you plenty of 9s easily, c) the theoretical difference in the 9s you get and the 9s that are advertised by AWS is more often than not totally irrelevant to the usecases you need to meet. To sum it up, you may argue all you want about how AWS's Rolls Royce is far superior than any car in the market, but the truth of the matter is that the vast majority has all their needs decisively met and even surpassed by running any other cloud provider's Ford hatchback.