> one of the couple dozen databases

I guess this is one of those use cases that justify the cloud. It's hard to host that reliably at home.

Not too push the point too hard, but a "dev environment" for a product is for a business (not an individual consumer). Having a server (rack) in an office is not that hard, but alas the cloud might be better here for ease of administration.

▲

mcny a day ago | parent | next [-]

My understanding is that aws exists because we can't get any purchase approved in under three months.

	▲	darkwater a day ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think so. An organization so big and bureaucratic that needs 3 months to authorize a server purchase will for sure need a few weeks of paperwork to authorize a new AWS account creation, and will track the spending for OU and will cut budget and usage if they think you deserve it.

▲

wongarsu a day ago | parent | prev [-]

And plenty of datacenters will be happy to give you some space in one of their racks.

Not wanting to deal with backups or HA are decent reasons to put a database in the cloud (as long as you are aware how much you are overpaying). Not having a good place to put the server is not a good reason

	▲	immibis a day ago \| parent [-]
		If anyone's curious about the ballpark cost, a carrier-owned (?) DC near me that publishes prices (most don't) advertises a full rack for 650€ per month, including internet @ 20TB/month @ 1 Gbps, and 1kW power. Though both of which are probably less than you'd need if you needed a full of rack of space, which I assume is part of the reason that pricing is almost always "contact us". I did not bother getting a quote just for the purpose of this comment. But another thing that people need to be less afraid of, when they're looking to actually spend a few digits of money and not just comment about it, is asking for quotes.