|
|
|
|
|
by chmod775
633 days ago
|
|
Given that the full AWS setup that would replace that one server would cost closer to $6000-8000 / month, they could just use that money to buy a bunch of extra hard drives, a backup server, and hire a junior dev/sysadmin whose only job is to watch over it, still coming out ahead of AWS. |
|
You can beat AWS on pricing but not like this. You need to be finding areas where you have a lot of baseline demand – enough to amortize the cost of all of the lower level work – and can cut some of the things they do which you don’t need. For example, if you can afford more downtime in a disaster scenario or can rely on an external rebuild process if the database backups turn out to be unusable.