[benbro]

Is it practical to use several providers when egress is so expensive?

[opportune]

No, not unless you are someone like Netflix. Usually you can configure multi-region failover and such and that will keep your things running. It is more expensive but for most use cases I think the cost is still less than the dev time/complexity of setting up multi-provider workflows and the inevitable duplication of resources (which is part of the cost of multi-region anyway)

[mbesto]

No. And there's been a lot of talk recently about multi-provider being the right strategy to mitigate downtime, which IMHO is a farce peddled by expensive consultants. The parent comment is correct - this is why availability zones and regions have been established by each provider.

For the large majority of businesses investing in infrastructure-as-code far outweighs any crazy HA, redundant, multi-provider, whizzbang whatever setup you may have.

[dragonwriter]

> this is why availability zones and regions have been established by each provider.

But the degree of independence provided by AZs is not constant across providers, despite similar terminology.

[_wmd]

You can move 1.6TB between providers in a month for the same price as a single beefy DB server (m4.16xlarge here). That's a whole lot of logical replication..

[majewsky]

Depends on your use-case.

[timc3]

You are comparing one overpriced SKU to another over priced SKU.