>>This week a client's file and SQL Server's mother board fried itself at about 9AM
>>There were good program/data backups but no server redundancy.
>>A super network tech colleague had all the client's apps up and running on an Amazon server by 5PM the same day.
>>Now the client has server redundancy, better performance, and one less box to worry about.
>>That was really impressive.
>>Add one to the list of cloud converts.
>>I've bought my last Windows box.
>
>Yep a lot of folks are going that way. All is good as long as your database is under 16tb - and I think that should be good enough for large percentage of businesses. I am curious as to the cost though - I've never been able to get the Amazon website to actually give me a price lol. Not having to deal with the box and setting up redundancy etc etc etc is worth a few bucks for sure - and the piece of mind you get from not worrying about it is worth a few bucks too.

Not sure about the price. It depends on the configuration and the number of users.
It's a huge technical shift to go from the LAN to the cloud, however.
Fortunately, the tech handling the conversion is as good as they come, so it went well, albeit with many bumps in the road.
It would have been much smoother had he had more time.