[hgjbhujxgjbv]

I just dont see any of savings here. Let me give you a little list i have put together just to compare. This was put together in 5 minutes, just to get some price:

$74.99 MSI B450M PRO-VDH Max $189.99 AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core, 12-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor with Wraith Stealth Cooler $38.99 Ballistix 2x8GB Sport LT DDR4-3200 CL16 $63.99 WD Blue 3D NAND 500GB Internal PC SSD - SATA III 6 Gb/s, M.2 2280, Up to 560 MB/s - WDS500G2B0B $48.99 Thermaltake Smart BX1 450W Bronze $59.99 SilverStone Technology Micro-ATX Glass Computer Case PS15B-G

=$476,94

In 10 months you have a new server paid. You have huge gap to 2 years of guarantee for components to bring in networking costs and electricity. It just doesnt make sense to pay google for this.

[dna_polymerase]

Sorry, but that comparison is just wrong.

Can I shut that thing down if I don't need it, not having any cost? What about electricity, is there a backup in case there is a power outage?

This is about cloud offer vs cloud offer and not a discussion about cloud vs self-hosting.

Side-note: You probably want to go with ECC memory for your server build.

[hgjbhujxgjbv]

Add $100 for UPS. And as I said, 5 minute list. I dont really understand what you guys are doing but the price of self hosting is almost 3 times cheaper. It is crazy that you pay for that.

[ascorbic]

Are you also assuming the datacenter is free too, or are you planning to keep this in a closet? I hope you have HVAC too. And who is going to monitor this hardware? Who is going to assemble it? And sure the components are under warranty, but what happens when it breaks? Do you need to keep hot spares, or are you happy to wait for a replacement to be shipped out? I'm assuming you know instantly what the problem is too? Compare with the cloud version where you can have a new instance up and running in seconds.

I don't know about you, but I can remember the situation 15 years ago as a new startup where a problem with a server meant driving to the datacenter. I can tell you, paying more for a EC2 instance was the definition of a no-brainer.

[dna_polymerase]

Of course, if you need only one machine the cloud is probably not for you. If however you can make use of all the hosted options (CloudSQL, Pub/Sub, ML, etc.) and need scalability (in terms of number of machines used) these services are actually useful.

Example, say you run an online shop that has more demand in certain timeframes (like black-friday or December) you can easily scale your website by spinning up machines, which you can easily stop using after the demand flats out. With own hardware/colo/traditional web hosting you can't do that and holding like 10x hardware for short-term traffic spikes makes no sense.

[hgjbhujxgjbv]

The only thing that is a problem is that one physical machine can still handle 10 times the spike of "vcpu" which is shared between multiple customers. For much lower price. Very strong computers are available for real bargain but nooo, lets use the cloud. Its a buzzword so it needs to be good

It is funny that no one used the most realistic "excuse". That you just have no clue how to do it (install, setup software) and as you cant do it yourself, you need to hire someone. This is the only case where google does make sense. It is path into idiocracy as you will be able to do less and less yoursel with outsourcing know-how (we didnt learn anything from past China expiriences right?), but we wont worry too much about it too much about it, untill then you will all be zillionaires and it will no longer matter.

[dna_polymerase]

The online shop was an easy enough example. I could have talked about research projects using thousands of machines for a few hours per experiment. Maybe you understand that holding thousands of machines for effectively using them once in a while doesn't make much sense.

But hey, being judgmental towards a whole industry running large portions of the web is way more fun.