5 ms·
We're not using it other than for internal failovers. We tried to build version two of our product on it. The costs increased rapidly until it was cheaper to bu
by pling 12y ago
We're not using it other than for internal failovers. We tried to build version two of our product on it. The costs increased rapidly until it was cheaper to buy a 42U and stuff it with HP kit and pay for a fat pipe. The storage was expensive, the per transaction costs are expensive, the bandwidth is expensive, the IaaS machines are expensive and the support is expensive when it goes wrong which it does occasionally and violently.
This was all financial data aggregation and archival stuff.
In test it was 23% more expensive than our own kit over 3 years.
- cpard 12y agothat's some nice info, thanks for sharing pling. It makes me curious to try and compare costs with other IaaS platforms.
- pling 12y agoI would do. There's a sweet spot somewhere and Azure isn't it.
- chton 12y agoDon't forget to also compare the costs to doing in-house hosting. The cost effectiveness of any platform is dependent on how you use it, and (as pling discovered) a cloud host isn't necessarily the best option.
- cpard 12y agoI agree with that, although I believe that it heavily depends on where on your product roadmap you are. For early stage MVPs where you care for quick validation, I believe that in-house hosting is not a very good option, maybe a PaaS environment is more suitable for these cases, e.g. Heroku. But in any case, I think that everything is related to the product, the team and what you are trying to achieve. Of course in every iteration you should re-evaluate your strategies.
- chton 12y agoI agree completely. It's important to weigh all the options, and include issues like vender lock-in, SLA and future requirements.