On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 02:04 +0900, Corey Lawson wrote:
> On 6/22/05, Matthew Berg <galt / gothpoodle.com> wrote:
> <snip> 
> > You forgot a _lot_ of costs - network (switches, cabling, punch downs),
> > racks, colocation space, power, air conditioning, etc.
> 
> ...but a lot of those costs are one-time costs, or they scale well. It
> does not cost 10x to administer 50 boxes vs 5 (unless they're Windows
> boxes... *:o ).

Power, cooling, and leased space are a huge cost.  Especially if you
want an kind of reliability; i.e. conditioned power (preferably multiple
battery backed circuits) and redundant cooling systems.

And I never said administration was 10x higher.  :)  I don't quantify
that sort of thing without knowing the specifics of the deployment.
When we're talking about _that_ much of a discrepancy in hardware
requirements, though, the requirements are almost certainly going to be
significant.  Five machines may be enough for an existing administrator
to absorb, whereas fifty new machines is likely to require additional
staffing.

(Personally, I think both the 10x and 3x are both somewhat exaggerated
from what you'd see in the real world, anyways. :)

> Programming also includes upgrades and software maintenance, and the
> time involved with those. The simpler language platform will cost less
> to do this than the more complex language platform.

Oh, certainly.  This would also be variable from project to project, of
course.  It seems like a lot of developers subscribe to the idea that
"hardware is cheap" without really understanding the costs involved.

-- 
Matthew Berg <galt / gothpoodle.com>