Hacker News Reader

If you're running a 4 TB Postgres database, but you still have to worry about this level of maintenance, what's the value proposition of using a hosted service? There's usually insane markup on any hosted Postgres instance.

If you want to pay multi-thousands dollars a month for a database server, it's WAY cheaper just to slap a server with a ton of drives in colocation.

View on HN

Might be an accounting scam^H^H^H^H trick to book the costs as an operating expense vs a capital expenditure. In general capital expenditures have to be planned carefully, held on the books for years, and show a return on investment. Perhaps an accountant can provide more detail.

I feel like the explanation is a much more simple: it's easier to use Azure/AWS/GCP for everything.

Yeah, this migration might have been somewhat painful, but it looks like it's a situation the company experiences every few years.

This is a big reason why yearly pricing vs buying hardware is popular (one of many reasons).

An expensive can be used that year where a capital expenses vest over years so only a portion can be applied that year.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com