3 ms·
I recently did the math with the help of a friend who uses Amazon AWS. I have three primary servers in a data center and by running them myself versus relying u
by thinkcomp 13y ago
I recently did the math with the help of a friend who uses Amazon AWS. I have three primary servers in a data center and by running them myself versus relying upon Amazon, I have saved my company about $5,000 per year, each year, over six years.
- aculver 13y agoAny estimate how many additional hours you spend maintaining these systems vs. what you would if you hosted on AWS?
- imbriaco 13y agoIf it's just three servers, I'd be astonished if any meaningful amount of time was spent maintaining the hardware after the initial installation. You have to maintain the operating system in either case, so this is a clear win for dedicated machines. Everybody forgets the E part of EC2. If your workload is not elastic, or is very small, it's incredibly likely that EC2 is not the most cost effective solution.
- mh- 13y agoalso, seemingly everyone neglects to calculate these comparisons based on EC2's reserved (heavy utilization) pricing. this brings the hard costs much closer. (but doesn't close the gap entirely.)
- imbriaco 13y agoIndeed, and you can almost certainly buy a server for the cost of the reservation. Don't get me wrong, EC2 is an amazingly useful platform and it has been a game changer for our industry in a lot of ways. Improved hosting economics isn't generally one of them.
- thinkcomp 13y agoI'd have to maintain the software stack either way.
- hashtree 13y agoThe higher specs you need in a single server the greater the savings vs AWS.