3 ms·
Yes, on-prem is generally cheaper in the long-run. For example, my company recently purchased $400k worth of hardware that would cost $80k/month if it was all
by mac-chaffee 5y ago
Yes, on-prem is generally cheaper in the long-run.
For example, my company recently purchased $400k worth of hardware that would cost $80k/month if it was all EC2. There's amortized costs of the supporting infra (cooling, power) and ongoing maintenance/depreciation, but paying for the hardware in 5 months can't be beat.
- Flankk 5y agoYou forgot the salaries of the network technicians you wouldn't have otherwise. You now have to manage attacks on your infrastructure yourself. You left out bandwidth costs as well. Your servers will need to be replaced entirely every 5 years, and partially as hardware fails. It sounds like you're at sufficient scale that it makes sense. For most people, it doesn't make sense.