- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
To the surprise of no one. Cloud services are convenient and easily scalable - Which makes it cost effective for a lot of work loads. But for all work loads? Of course not!
“We saved $xxx by buying our own car instead of paying taxi every time.”.
They barely touched on the time and money spent managing bare metal. I’d imagine that 230k a year is gonna get a big ol dent in it when their assumption of “modern servers make maintenance needs much lower” turns out to be false.
All for not hosting in AWS but I want to see one of these articles put out actual numbers about what it looks like to run. I want the we are two years into this and have learned X, Y, and Z post. And one that isn’t written by DHH
We’ve come full circle.
If you need it fast, or have unpredictable load spikes, then cloud makes sense. If not, then it costs more over time than the on-prem investment,the end.
No mention of software costs, ongoing software and hardware maintenance. There is no cookie cutter answer, it really depends on the specific systems.
They say their monthly op-ex is $5500.
Our monthly operational expenditure (op-ex), which includes power, cooling, energy, and remote hands (although we seldom use this service), is now approximately $5,500.
I’m always a little surprised that we talk about NFS and Cloud Native, like gross figures without talking about payroll