Live data from Hacker News

Azure has an edge over AWS at big companies, Goldman Sachs survey says

cnbc.com

211–220 of 260 posts

Re: Azure has an edge over AWS at big companies, Goldman Sachs survey says

#211

I think everyone here is missing the real reason why big companies want to go with Azure (and smaller companies probably should consider too). No one trusts Amazon to not screw them over. The A to Z in the Amazon logo hurts AWS because big companies are worried Amazon will compete with them (if they don’t already) and will use AWS data and information against those companies. MS has a long history of being a provider…

> The A to Z in the Amazon logo hurts AWS because big companies are worried Amazon will compete with them (if they don’t already) and will use AWS data and information against those companies. This always had a vibe of a conspiracy theory to me. If this were to ever happen and it came out, AWS would be screwed for all eternity. You just need one disgruntled employee to keep a screenshot of their auditing logs to make…

You should see what Amazon does to sellers on its marketplace.

They may not touch AWS, but the stink from their Amazon related actions definitely affects big companies making decisions AWS.

Re: Azure has an edge over AWS at big companies, Goldman Sachs survey says

#212
post #73
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any examples to backup up your opinion?

It is true, many of the companies I have worked for the last few years is using Azure and only the UI. No one uses the API/SDK. They hire devops cloud consultants to click on the UI, not to use the API to tie everything together.

That doesn’t mean the APIs aren’t first class citizens.

If you go watch Channel 9 (Official MS) training videos, outside of the let’s get setup videos, the devs and presenters are almost always using the APIs to interact with Azure either through Powershell or Visual Studio.

Re: Azure has an edge over AWS at big companies, Goldman Sachs survey says

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The A to Z in the Amazon logo hurts AWS because big companies are worried Amazon will compete with them (if they don’t already) and will use AWS data and information against those companies. This always had a vibe of a conspiracy theory to me. If this were to ever happen and it came out, AWS would be screwed for all eternity. You just need one disgruntled employee to keep a screenshot of their auditing logs to make…

There is some tin foil to it, but I think it isn't even what you quoted. It's that Amazon competes in many markets, and paying millions and millions to AWS is a benefit to Amazon, period. Why fund a competitor when you could fund not-competitor?

And whether it’s true or not, the fact is that a lot of big companies are actually thinking this way, and it’s affecting their decision making.

Re: Azure has an edge over AWS at big companies, Goldman Sachs survey says

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you should start a YouTube channel. In that area I'm sure you have a lot of interesting conversations with technical people, and entrepreneurs trying to make it

Some passengers use the ride as a confessional or just to vent. I feel it would be wrong to share too much about what they say. It seems like an unwritten rule. I don't have a front/rear view dash cam like a lot of drivers advise because I appreciate these conversations and don't want to inhibit them.

Of course you would get their permission to record them!

Re: Azure has an edge over AWS at big companies, Goldman Sachs survey says

#215
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's throughput credits that EFS gives you (e.g r/w MiB/s), not IOPS. AFAIK they don't document the IOPS available at all. In my experience the latency for an individual i/o operation on EFS is always at the "HDD from 1995" level regardless of available burst credits. Something that does lots of small random I/O like checking out got repos on Jenkins workers is basically worst case for EFS. https://docs.aws.a…

Throughput credits, you're right, my bad. The agents were in ECS with no persistent storage, so that wasn't the problem. I was just running the Jenkins master off of EFS, for the persistent configuration storage. And I don't think it's the latency that's killing EFS usage, it's the throughput. While the credits were there, everything went smoothly, once the credits ran out, the base throughput was fit for IO meant fo…

We had the same issue with a pgsql server. Started out fine, but to get decent performance you pay out the nose for higher disk throughput. It looks competitive when your pricing things out and don't know you need to pay for that. When you find out it's a classic sunk cost fallacy and most companies just eat the cost.

Re: Azure has an edge over AWS at big companies, Goldman Sachs survey says

#216
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have literally never seen a setup where cloud came out less than ~twice the cost of dedicated hosting. I have seen instances where dedicated hosting comes out cheaper than putting your own equipment in a colo, but even that depends on being in a location where energy and property prices (and so colo rental costs) are high. And this does factor in devops - when doing consulting I earned consistently more (because of…

I suspect you’re doing it wrong , or there’s some niche type of computing you specialize in. In general purpose IT, looking across an enterprise portfolio of applications, we consistently see customers of Tidal Migrations replatform their applications to cloud and save 95+% in OpEx vs dedicated on-premise hosting. IMO, The first step to realizing those cost benefits is recognizing that the cloud is not your datacente…

First of all:

> dedicated on-premise hosting

I did not say on-premise for a reason. Most people are not well placed to host on-premise. For starters it tends to require ops staff on site, which in many countries means a minimum of 3 shifts of a minimum of 2 people. On-premise deployments rarely makes sense.

I said dedicated hosting, which implies renting servers from providers like e.g. Hetzner.

But that said, you can replatform to anything from anything and save money in most organizations, because most organizations tends to be very bad at optimizing cost, so this to me says very little.

Most of the systems I've moved over the years were on the other hand carefully architected to be "cloud friendly" to start with. Some of them started out on cloud platforms and were migrated off to save money.

When you on the other hand start comparing the amount of compute and bandwidth you can get for the same prices, it becomes very clear how overpriced they are.

You can easily find bandwidth at less than 1/10th the price of AWS for example, and in fact I've had clients where their bandwidth bill alone at AWS was bigger than the total hosting bill after I'd moved them elsewhere. No amount of architectural change of their systems will change that - at a minimum you need to reduce the data transfer from their AWS setup. Now, you don't need to move everything out of AWS to fix that - often the savings you can achieve by cutting the AWS bandwidth bill can pay for an entire CDN....

Dedicated hosting also tends to give you far more flexibility in the precise hardware configuration to the point where savings can be similarly huge by substantially reducing the number of instances.

> I believe the business benefit of the agility gains that come from instant and decentralized resource provisioning will always trump any cloud bill...

Nothing prevents you from spinning up cloud instances when needed. Most dedicated hosting providers today also offers cloud instances, so you can typically do that even with a single provider. In practice, the cost difference between dedicated and cloud typically allows a substantial overprovisioning and still saving money, but if you're prepared to use cloud to handle spikes, you can save even more by using dedicated by going closer to the wire, because you know you can spin up cloud instances to take the peaks.

I've set up and operated systems like that which balanced loads over both colo's, dedicated hosting and cloud instances seamlessly several times.

Re: Azure has an edge over AWS at big companies, Goldman Sachs survey says

#217

MS has established business relationships with large corps to a much greater degree than Amazon. They're already entrenched as nobody's moving away from Windows desktops or Office anytime soon, so the upsell to cloud for them is trivial.

That's the key reason. It's the same reason why Microsoft Teams is becoming popular. Because it's included in support packages that businesses already have from using Office 365, or the business already has a relationship with Microsoft.

Re: Azure has an edge over AWS at big companies, Goldman Sachs survey says

#218
post #7

I work for a Danish municipality with roughly 10,000 employees. I’m not sure if you know, but our public sector has been competing with Estonia at being the most digitised in the world for a decade. We operate an estimated 300-500 different IT-systems, some of them enterprise sized SAP solutions deployed on old IBM mainframes with multiple layers of APIs to make their fronts somewhat web-based (don’t ask). Others are…

> We have a direct line to Seattle, and parts of what we ring up at tickets have made it into the global 365 infrastructure. This is great for one business, but bad for the whole of businesses IMHO. Microsoft shoehorns every little thing into their products, never asking themselves if they should . As long as they think they can they will. This leads to stupid things like Durable (aka stateful) Azure Functions. Durab…

> Microsoft shoehorns every little thing into their products

That's just how enterprise software works. It's not a Microsoft thing. It's an enterprise thing.

Consumer software often benefits from simplicity and elegance.

But for enterprise software, clients have hard requirements, so you provide the solutions they request.

There really isn't any choice to it. If you don't build it, they'll go with a competitor who will.

There truly isn't any other solution, unfortunately.

At best, you can spend more money trying to improve UX and interfaces. But when you have a set number of employees, and have to choose between improving the interface or building the features that will land another client, it's easy to see which choice gets made.

Re: Azure has an edge over AWS at big companies, Goldman Sachs survey says

#219
post #181
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have literally never seen a setup where cloud came out less than ~twice the cost of dedicated hosting. I have seen instances where dedicated hosting comes out cheaper than putting your own equipment in a colo, but even that depends on being in a location where energy and property prices (and so colo rental costs) are high. And this does factor in devops - when doing consulting I earned consistently more (because of…

I think this will always be the case when looking at the base cost of infrastructure itself (price of a compute/GB of storage in the cloud vs on prem) However, the cost of cloud pays off so dramatically (in my past experience across companies) when you can see what new things the company can do with IaaS/PaaS and how quickly its done. I've been at a large bank and a small startup that was forced to use an external da…

Nothing stops you from doing infra as code on dedicated hosting. All of my setups for the last decade or so have been built around VMs and/or containers with deployment systems where we spun up containers across multiple datacenters on servers we had full control over.

Many dedicated hosting providers now provide APIs for deploying servers, as well, so you can handle even deployment of the underlying servers in an automated way.

Several have combined cloud deployments with deployments to dedicated servers from the same container images, bound together in a single virtual network. E.g. I had client that hosted across AWS, GCP and Hetzner, and migrated services between them zero-downtime. Eventually they moved everything to Hetzner because it cost them about 1/10th of AWS and GCP given their bandwidth use (at the time outbound bandwidth at AWS cost 50x what it cost at Hetzner).

If organizational dysfunction means you're not allowed to order the resources you need, then that is of course a problem, but a very different one.

Re: Azure has an edge over AWS at big companies, Goldman Sachs survey says

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some passengers use the ride as a confessional or just to vent. I feel it would be wrong to share too much about what they say. It seems like an unwritten rule. I don't have a front/rear view dash cam like a lot of drivers advise because I appreciate these conversations and don't want to inhibit them.

Of course you would get their permission to record them!

I doubt if they'd speak with much candor.
Post reply on HN