From your own servers to the cloud: when it saves and when it costs more
The cloud saves money, right up until someone leaves everything running over the weekend.
The cloud is neither cheap nor expensive on its own; it depends on your usage pattern. Variable and seasonal workloads usually win. Constant, highly predictable 24/7 workloads are sometimes cheaper on your own hardware. The expensive mistake is migrating for fashion instead of for the numbers.
01 The cloud wins with variable demand
If your usage rises and falls, you pay only for what you use and switch off the rest. There the cloud almost always beats a server bought to handle the peak.
02 Your own hardware wins with constant load
A database running at 80% around the clock, all year, often costs less on amortized in-house iron than renting that same capacity.
03 The hidden cost is data egress
Outbound transfer, snapshots, and accumulated storage inflate the bill month after month. None of it shows up in the initial quote.
04 Over-provisioning is the silent expense
Oversized instances and idle resources are the most common leak. Without cost governance, the cloud becomes a subscription no one reviews.
// A typical case (illustrative)
Picture two workloads. One is a sales portal with peaks at payday and during campaigns: in the cloud it pays for the peak only when it happens and saves versus buying hardware for the maximum. The other is an internal ERP that runs steady all year: sized for the cloud, it came out ~35% more expensive than the amortized in-house server. The right answer was to move one and leave the other.
Illustrative example with typical market figures, not a specific client.
// next step
Before migrating, ask for a per-workload analysis that compares cloud against hardware using your real numbers. At dba.mx we do it at a fixed price, so the decision comes from data and not from a promise.