cloud server

[Jose Lerebours]

On 03/18/2016 12:48 PM, Fairlight via Filepro-list wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 08:22:00AM -0700, Bill Campbell via Filepro-list thus spoke:
>> As far as which service to use, the only one I have experience
>> with is Amazon EC2 with Linux VMs.  Setting up a single VM is
>> pretty easy, and the costs seem reasonable.
> Just keep in mind that EC2 is not flawless.  Wnen people have gotten ticked
> off at Netflix, their servers residing on EC2 have been the target of DDoS
> attacks, which ends up taking much of EC2 with it.
>
> The bigger the target, the less you want to be standing alongside them.
>
> mark->
So, it appears that there will never be a full proof solution

If you self host, you have the problem of redundancy, speed, backup, 
hardware cost and maintenance, you give up a room in your house (lol), 
etc., etc., etc.

If you use services as those already mentioned, you have to deal with 
their "issues" such as attacks and anything else thus far not mentioned.

There is no perfect scenario - what then is the "best" scenario?

Are those of us using filePro condemned to "self hosting" and dealing 
with all that comes with it?  Is there really no viable solution to "get 
it out of here and let some one else deal with it"?

Perhaps, fpTech has an untapped market here.  My client has all sorts of 
stuff in his office but just got hit with a fire in his area which 
brought down his operation.  If he have had a redundancy in place, his 
clients would have had means to access his application and business 
could have gone on as usual - Heck, he could have had his employees stay 
home and do their work via web access.

So really, how much benefit is there in "self hosting" versus "VMs" 
these days?