It sounds like you had invested in a high redundancy deployment in AWS, and switched to a single host with a single DB in a colo facility given the background that you could tolerate downtime and the people time to remediate the outage.
I'm curious, what made you choose to also move to a colo facility vs. allocating a single ec2 instance to act as a VPS? I'd imagine the costs would have been comparable, and you could still get automated backups/recovery with EBS + snapshots.
Fair point. I was just thinking about that myself. One big reason is to avoid being charged for outgoing data transfer; with OVH, that's unmetered, with a gigabit port. Also, the OVH box, with the specs I laid out above, costs ~$150 per month. For roughly that same price on EC2, we could get an m5ad.xlarge on-demand instance, with 2 cores, 16 GB of RAM, and a 150 GB SSD. We'd have to add EBS and/or S3 (non-Glacier) storage on top of that, and as noted above, outgoing data transfer.
I'm curious, what made you choose to also move to a colo facility vs. allocating a single ec2 instance to act as a VPS? I'd imagine the costs would have been comparable, and you could still get automated backups/recovery with EBS + snapshots.