[dnadler]

I just recently published a project and had been mulling over whether I should move it to AWS or keep hosting it on the server in my basement...

Seems like I made the right choice!

In all seriousness, I don't think I'd rely on a single provider for anything these days, unless I really don't care when it goes down. That's pretty easy and cheap to do with most things, but I'm not quite sure how to approach a backup database in an economical way.

[Freebytes]

When infrastructure costs are your largest business expense, then having two separate providers for a duplication of services is not feasible. You must also then have methods by which to determine when the service is unavailable and seamlessly fail over to the service that is actively running.

In cases where data integrity is important, this could also result in splits where data gets left behind. It is often better to fail than to have situations where the data does not match.

[dnadler]

Well, to address the costs issue, you could run hot-hot and have half of your resources on each provider, and in the event of failure, scale the functioning one up to meet demand. That's obviously a decent amount of effort to set up, though.

[OJFord]

Is your basement not also a single provider?

[dnadler]

Yes definitely, what I meant is that I would probably use AWS as a fallback for my basement, or maybe the other way around. I didn't make that clear at all.