Is Cloud Hosting an option for this?

Quote Originally published by Exit
See publication
We have an application that runs on a dedicated server located in the facilities that we would like to move to a more managed environment with some ornaments.

  • Running in Windows Server
  • Use MSSQL server
  • Use IIS to interact with the SQL database (use a non-standard port, this is not a public website).
  • Maximum of 15 concurrent users (through IIS web pages)
  • Receive a continuous flow of incoming records via FTP that are imported into the SQL database
  • Remote desktop for programmers to access to install updates.
  • Unique static IP with SSL
  • Failover configuration, such as FCI, WSCF, etc., to minimize or eliminate the interruption of users in the event of a failure.

I am interested in hearing the opinions of others about this.

Thank you.

– Sally

As someone said here, what you can do with a dedicated physical server can do it with a virtual one, which generally says that problems with the public cloud are prices and reliability.
If you are concerned about reliability and high availability for an application that sounds traditional or traditional, then public cloud is not necessarily the right choice.

Public clouds are excellent places for flexibility and burst capability, however, the reliability may be irregular unless you make full use of your multi-zone functions and your application is "web-scale", which is not what you write .

I would definitely consider the public cloud, but I would also think of a reliable provider of dedicated servers in a decent-level data center with redundant power and network.
If you feel comfortable managing your own hardware, then colo could also be an option.

HTH