For the price, they could buy an exact replica bare metal server and still save money.

They could but then that exchanges cost savings for complexity. You now need to keep them in sync and it is double the cost.

I agree with the other poster, this is fine for a toy site or sites but low quality manual DR isn't good for production.

> they could

They could, but they didn't and instead they wrote that blog post which, even being generous is still kinda hard to avoid describing as misleading.

I would not have written the post I did if they had presented a multi-node bare-metal cluster or whatever more realistic config.

> They could, but they didn't and instead they wrote that blog post which, even being generous is still kinda hard to avoid describing as misleading.

What do you feel was misleading?

	▲	wiether 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That they get the exact same level of service for $1,199 less per month. They don't. And reading the article, they don't seem to understand that.
	▲	traceroute66 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> What do you feel was misleading? Erm. I already spelt it out in my original post ? I'm not going to re-write it, the TL;DR is they are making an Apples and Oranges comparison. Yes they "saved money" but in no way, shape or form are the two comparable. The polite way to put is is .... they saved as much money as they did because they made very heavy handed "architectural decisions". "Decisions" that they appear to be unaware of having made.