Comment by mnw21cam

Comment by mnw21cam 13 hours ago

I have a VPS. It costs me £1.34 per month. It's way over-powered for what I need it for.

However, one situation where I think the cloud might be useful is for archive storage. I did a comparison between AWS Glacier Deep Storage and local many-hard-drive boxes, for storing PB-scale backups, and AWS just squeaked in as slightly cheaper, but only because you only pay for the amount you use, whereas if you buy a box then you have to pay for the unused space. And it's off-site, which is a resilience advantage. And the defrosting/downloading charge was acceptable at effectively 2.5 months worth of storage. However, at smaller scales you would probably win with a small NAS, and at larger scales you'd be able to set up a tape library and fairly comprehensively beat AWS for price.

ch4s3 13 hours ago

Yeah, but in 800 months you'd come out ahead with a dedicated server in your closet.

Reply View 2 replies

ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 12 hours ago

I run a tiny local dedicated server 24/7 that consumes around 10W on average, which is about $2/mo in electricity costs where I live.

Reply View | 1 reply
- ch4s3 12 hours ago
  
  I meant the upfront cost of the machine.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

PaulKeeble 12 hours ago

Its a weird service because before that point AWS is crazy expensive for storage, especially down in the TB range its awful value compared to your box and drives. But once you get into that PB scale AWS actually seems to be competitive, I guess because the GB/TBs they are selling are from PB scale solutions and all the overhead that entails.

Reply View 0 replies