3 ms·

I don't think "bang for the buck" comparisons are the main issue here. The main advantage of going for AWS (especially) or other cloud provider is flexibility:

I don't think "bang for the buck" comparisons are the main issue here. The main advantage of going for AWS (especially) or other cloud provider is flexibility: you shrink and grow your server farms whenever you need to, with little setup/maintenance costs. So, cost savings come, mainly, from not paying for idle/underused hardware. At scale, these can make it cheaper to go cloud rather than self-hosted.

kayoone 13y ago
Sounds nice in theory, but how often do you actually need to do that? More often than not, you are still overpaying on AWS vs a simple leased server. Look at what you get for a mere 50 bucks/month http://www.hetzner.de/en/hosting/produkte_rootserver/ex40 http://www.hetzner.de/en/hosting/produkte_rootserver/ex40 Add 10 to that and you have dual SSDs, no long term contracts and provisioning of new machines within the same day, mostly <2 hours.
- jmngomes 13y ago
  > "More often than not, you are still overpaying on AWS vs a simple leased server" Sorry, didn't explain myself properly: that's exactly my point. Unless you have enough scale to enjoy the benefits of on-demand shrink/grow, you're better off with offers like the one you posted or even other cloud providers like DO. A good thing about AWS is that it ended up forcing down prices for leased servers.