3 ms·
> you need a fair amount of storage to balance out the staff time you’d need to run that service on bare servers. Do you have any proof of your statement? Eg.
by smartbit 4y ago
> you need a fair amount of storage to balance out the staff time you’d need to run that service on bare servers.
Do you have any proof of your statement? Eg. same type of org, one using Hetzner the other using one of the big three? Are the sizes of the DevOps team that different? And don’t forget to calculate the overhead on the big three from having to architect for the cost of egress.
I know there is the sales fairy of being able to scale out quickly, does that really matter in both cases? And if really required, can’t it be done for the couple of hours/days on one of the big three? Not to forget that scale-out isn’t available in some regions, as we’ve seen discussed here recently.
- remus 4y agoI'm not sure what counts as proof, but I think it's fair to point out that comparing a bare metal server to managed cloud storage is not like for like. For example, Google cloud storage offers automatic migration of cold data to tape, replication across regions allowing fast recovery in case of a failure, durability guarantees etc. If that's not something you need then you could definitely save yourself a lot of money, but if you need to build some of that stuff out (and then monitor it, improve perf, upgrade when new drives come out, be on call for down time etc.) Then the cost comparison becomes less clear.