[cesarb]

I see no mention of bandwidth pricing.

Some time ago, I evaluated the pricing for someone who was thinking of moving a web server from a traditional private server to AWS. It seemed that the monthly cost would be lower, until I looked at the bandwidth cost. The monthly price of that traditional private server, which included a fixed bandwidth limit, ended up being lower than what it would cost just for the bandwidth on AWS.

[partiallypro]

In some ways AWS locks in its customers with their egress pricing. It can be so expensive to move away because of the egress that it's economically not viable. I don't think that's a mistake. I have a feeling in a number of years this could be reviewed by governments.

[uuyi]

Oh yes egress pricing is horrible. That’s why AWS/S3 looks nice to backup to but that first restore costs big time.

One killer no one seems to notice is the bandwidth between availability zones. When you have a proper best practice cross AZ deployment it can be rather expensive. But still cheaper than switches and humans and cages and data centre contracts.

[bgro]

There's so many variables. I was looking into moving my stuff into the cloud to throw out some physical hard drives. I haven't committed to anything yet but I was surprised to see dropbox is somehow cheaper than AWS. Isn't dropbox just an entire extra company that makes a layer slapped on top of AWS?

[xhkkffbf]

That used to be the case, but they set up their own server farms a while ago. It was a big project but it allowed them to undercut AWS now.

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3044261/dropbox-quits-...

[antifa]

I'm really suprised you found a VPS that was cheaper before AWS bandwidth kicks in, usually that's only possible with serverless.

[lightlyused]

Lift and shift is never a good thing unless you have plans to decrease your spend in areas like egress.