I never said I was the only person; we were talking infrastructure cost savings, not human resources. Using AWS doesn't magically mean everything manages itself.

To directly answer your question, people from other teams were available if for some reason I was not.

Facebook is doing 1 engineer to 20K servers: http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2013/11/20/faceb...

The number of companies who can do that are single digits, but 1 person per ~5000 servers is absolutely reasonable.

Human resources are a major component of infrastucture costs. Sure, for small teams you can have someone doing everything but at scale you lose the fudge factor.

I would also be suspicious of 1:10,000+ numbers as they often don't include people that are part of the server team but not standing in the data center. Aka Facebooks 3 person dev team, a manager, whoever designs there HW, the team spun up to do mass HW installations etc.

In the end AWS covers a lot of seperate costs which are only really obvious as you keep scaling up.

Most applications/companies don't need to scale to hundreds of servers, let alone thousands... Having the number of employees to setup and manage that level of infrastructure has a not insignificant cost. If you can have your dev+ops team not have to have as much specialized knowledge and get more done with AWS, Azure or similar, then there are definitely costs to be saved. Of course the more of AWS/Azure infrastructure you leverage the more locked in you are...

I'd like to see a similar analysis for say 50-100 servers, and see if AWS really costs more vs. colocation when you add in the resources to setup and maintain the infrastructure.