News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Which is less expensive: Amazon or self-hosted?. Parent comment

Re:Which is less expensive: Amazon or self-hosted? by malij on Thursday February 13, 2014 @11:32AM (#7232231)
I agree with you. Sometimes hiring a person for maintaining is more expensive and sometimes is cheaper. It depends on the scale of product.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Which is less expensive: Amazon or self-hosted? by bijbij on Thursday February 13, 2014 @11:39AM (#7232289)
It is not just about hiring people there are too many parameters like providing backups and infrastrcture and so many on
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Which is less expensive: Amazon or self-hosted? by vonmoltke on Thursday February 13, 2014 @11:54AM (#7232392)
And how many of those are significantly different between the two options? Either way, you still need one or more sysadmins, you still need a backup setup. Sure, there are extra maintenance costs associated with owning the hardware, but what portion of maintaining a server infrastructure is tied up specifically in that, and how does it scale relative to the size of the cluster?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Which is less expensive: Amazon or self-hosted? by nasalgoat on Thursday February 13, 2014 @03:01PM (#7233863)
In my experience of managing a team of 10+ admins, less than 5% of their time was spent dealing with physical hardware and that includes installation and repair.

Today's equipment is very reliable.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Which is less expensive: Amazon or self-hosted? by malij on Thursday February 13, 2014 @11:42AM (#7232306)
But the most expensive resource is human resource, specially expert ones.
[ Parent | on HN ]