3 ms·
> The most painful is having to run multiple data centers for HA. Double or triple the price right there. Ok, let's make one thing patently clear: ITS THE SAME
by traceroute66 4y ago
> The most painful is having to run multiple data centers for HA. Double or triple the price right there.
Ok, let's make one thing patently clear: ITS THE SAME IN THE CLOUD
All the cloud vendors will tell you need to have stuff replicated in multiple "Availability Zones" or "Regions".
And yup, the nickle & diming nature of the cloud means that's going to cost you double or triple.
- foobarian 4y agoIt's not though. With your own stuff you have at least one DC sitting idle, with all that private gear doing nothing. Doesn't matter if you don't use a single byte of bandwidth. With AWS at least some of that is not there.
- Dylan16807 4y agoIf you're set up for HA you're paying for the idle hardware either way, and if you save on electricity that might benefit the DC option but not the cloud option. Overall not much difference there. Bandwidth is the one thing where the cloud clearly wins wrt idle servers... except that DC bandwidth is a hundred times cheaper than AWS bandwidth, so you should prefer buying 133% or 150% or 200% DC bandwidth by a mile.
- scarface74 4y agoWhether you are paying for HA depends on your Recovery Time Objective (RTO). You can have a bunch of suspended EC2 instances and non EC2 resources where you only pay per use in another region. You can redirect traffic to another region and have autoscaling spin up EC2 instances, etc.
- Dylan16807 4y agoSure, if you can wait for it to load from unallocated resources (and risk failure) then it's a very different scenario. But, very notably, you can have a suspended cloud backup even if your main servers aren't cloud. And the added complexity for datacenter-to-cloud HA doesn't have to be significantly higher than the cloud-to-cloud version.