> If you're a amateur something, that just does it for fun - sure sed "s/amateur/comparatively …

>> Otherwise what you have is a budget that is lower than the possible implications of temporary downtime. That doesn't make sense in the real world. > Maybe "the real world" isn't the best wording, though, and choosing "enterprise settings" or anything along those lines would be more suitable. This is the point - for-profit corporations, by definition, don't want to waste money, and if "high reliability" isn't required (or they don't know about it), they don't waste money. Most of the time, they don't waste the money. However, if "being cheap" would means billions in lost income (and they know about it), they really want to have reliable, redundant infrastructure and systems around.

I could probably design and deploy an HA system for way less. Maybe less than $200/month. It wouldn't be the most performant, but would be HA in three regions. But it leads me back to my original statement - extreme requirements for uptime don't come out of nothing. If you're in a location where IT related labor is extremely cheap - you're just going to have people keep one server up. I know I used to do exactly that, because the server was more than my annual income. But that didn't last long. After the first 20 minute downtime, the budget for HA solution was allocated. But before a certain point downtime wasn't expensive. Non-profits would probably be the only reasonable exception, where HA and low budgets could coincide. Otherwise - nah...