Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am hosting a low traffic website (PHP) in a dedicated server , should I move to AWS, Is it financially viable?

Currently I am having a cost of $200/month for this. I am planing to host it in linux, medium type of instances.

Please advice me

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by EEAA, Dan, faker, Brent Pabst, growse Dec 20 '12 at 14:25

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

What is your definition of low traffic? Have you thought about a vps? – chewbakka Dec 20 '12 at 8:38
If it's a low traffic site, why are you hosting on a dedicated site? Would shared hosting not be better? – tombull89 Dec 20 '12 at 9:02
shared host would not do better for sites functionality. We using $200 VPS hosting. – Dec 20 '12 at 9:04
So you do NOT use a dedicated Server as you indicate in the question, which would mean your own HARDWARE. – TomTom Dec 20 '12 at 9:15
Thank you @TomTom – Dec 20 '12 at 9:26

Seriously? Amazon may be cheaper, but that starts with you totally overpaying to start with.

CPU 5.94 GHZ, RAM 4435 MB, Disk Space 231 GB Bandwidth 3150 GB, this is required

For 200 USD a month?

I pay around 180.

I have a quad core + hyperthreading machine, 16gb memory, 120gb ssd + 1000gb disc, 10000gb traffic. Location is in chicago, which is known to be an expensive location (I know one data cneter there charging more than 1000 USD per rack unit per month, 500 USD per hour) due to the financial side (Chicago Mercantile Exchange - tons of colocation needed for trading, which NEEDS to be close). Your requirements for 200 USD is already a LOT too expensive. You overpay. Significantly.

Generally AWS etc. does scale badly with price for base load. They are great for smaller stuff, they are great for "peak" stuff (fire up 100 machines for 3 hours, then drop them), but a constant 24/7 load scenario - the price goes through the roof.

TOI give you an idea what you would pay if you are not location bound....

Fujitsu PRIMERGY MX130 S1 AMD Athlon™ II Quad-Core 16 GB DDR3-RAM 2x 1,500 GB SATA II-HDD Unlimited traffic

50 (!) USD. Well, 48.99.

Your 200 a month buy you there TWO of those:

OPteron 3280, 8x2,4ghz, 32gb ram, 2x2000gb sata drives, 100mbit flatrate. That is TWO of those, not one (price is 98.99 per month).

Really, you dont talk about "is AWS cheaper" but about "why do I overpay like I have no idea what servers cost".

share|improve this answer

It all depends on the usage of your instance. Yes, it may be more financially viable. But it depens.

You should have a look at this calculator provided by Amazon:

It may help you identify your estimated costs per month.

share|improve this answer
thanks for sharing it, But I dont get understand what they are mentioning there. – Dec 20 '12 at 9:06
CPU 5.94 GHZ, RAM 4435 MB, Disk Space 231 GB Bandwidth 3150 GB, this is required – Dec 20 '12 at 9:17

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.