Not included is overhead of dealing with maintenance. S3/R2 generally don’t require OPS type dedicated to care and feeding. This type of setup will likely require someone to spend 5 hours a week dealing with it.
Not included is overhead of dealing with maintenance. S3/R2 generally don’t require OPS type dedicated to care and feeding. This type of setup will likely require someone to spend 5 hours a week dealing with it.
True, this is a large reason why we chose to have the datacenter a couple blocks away from the office.
I once had about three racks full of servers under my control, admittedly they weren't a ton of disks, but still the hardware maintenance effort was pretty much negligible over a few years (until it all went to the cloud).
The majority of server wrangling work I spent dealing with OS updates and, most annoyingly, OpenStack. But that's something you can't escape even if you run your stuff in the cloud...
With S3/R2 whatever, you do get away from it. You dump a bunch of files on them and then retrieve them. OS Updates, Disk Failures, OpenStack, additional hardware? Pssh, that's S3 company problem, not yours.
$LastJob we ran a ton of Azure Web App Containers, alot of OS work no longer existed so it's possible with Cloud to remove alot of OS toil.
Why 5h a week? Just for hardware?
5h a week is basically 3 days a month. So if you have an issue that takes a couple of days per month to fix, which seems very fair, you're at that point.
a) 5hrs/week is negligible compared to that potential AWS bill.
b) The seem tolerant of failures so it's not going to be anything like 5hrs/week of physical maintenance. It will be bursty though (eg. box died, time to replace it...) but assuming they have spares of everything sitting around / already racked it shouldn't be a big deal.