3 ms·
> Almost every argument against the cloud - cost inefficiency, fear of vendor lock-in, etc - has easy solutions that make the whole thing extremely cost competi
by darkwater 2y ago
> Almost every argument against the cloud - cost inefficiency, fear of vendor lock-in, etc - has easy solutions that make the whole thing extremely cost competitive, if not a way better value, than trying to become your own cloud hosting provider. It's very hard to estimate the real world costs, both known and unknown, of DIY hosting (specifically the expertise, or lack of it, and the impacts from doing it wrong, which is very likely to happen if cloud hosting isn't your core business)
Please define your concept of self-hosting here. Does it mean you need to have your very own DC? Renting a few racks that you fill yourself? Rent CPU, storage and networking, with remote hands and all the bells and whistles?
Depending on the scenario it changes dramatically the burden of ownership (at a monetary cost, obviously). And depending on the size of the company and the variability of the workload, it can (or can not) make sense to be on-prem. But being like "cloud is perfect for everyone and everything, if you tune it well enough" seems a bit too much black&white to me.
- jiggawatts 2y agoThe co-location costs are relatively minor. The bulk of the cost of self-hosting comes from quantization: needing to buy 2x (for HA) of things and then not being able to use the full capacity. Things like tape libraries, Internet routers, hardware firewalls, etc... The multi-vendor aspect can be expensive as well. There's a lot of different end-of-life issues to track, firmware to update, specialist skills to hire, and so on. Just backup alone can be shockingly expensive, especially if it has a decently short RTO/RPO and is geo-redundant. In Azure and AWS this is a checkbox.