• CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Have you considered the implications of hardware failure on uptime? And where the cost to maintain a physical hardware will come from? What about scaling requirements?

    I’m not a network engineer, but I’ve been involved in the corporate argument of Cloud vs On-Prem. hosting for years now. The costs always come out better for Cloud when factoring in other indirect costs like facilities and labor.

    Granted it’s always been on the scale of hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, and I haven’t run the numbers on smaller requirements. I just wouldn’t want to expose additional points of failure in return for slightly lower monthly costs.

    • Wats0ns@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the cost always come out better for cloud for a given reliability level. But this is a volunteer run thing, so we won’t mind if there is some more important downtime than on reddit or Twitter. I really do think that if your objective is not reaching 100% uptime but cost reduction, then on prem really becomes the cheapest option

      • CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        A very good point! We don’t need constant uptime. But I worry about the hidden costs of On-Prem, and worst case scenario where TheDude is on vacation somewhere and the instance crashes, it could be down for a while. It’s also not a worry I would want to force on them either.