Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AWS just went multi-cloud

acloudguru.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 145 posts

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#41

Post by gigatexal »

shitlord wrote: post #23
rory_isAdonk wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is working at AWS hellish? Or once you get in it's just a normal job? I get its heavily dependent on the team, just wondering from your perspective.

AWS is huge, so YMMV across teams. Some teams have operational and funding issues, so your experience there may be hellish. You could think of it another way and realize that you have your work cut out for you. I previously worked on an AWS team like this and left because I got tired of the grind. On the other hand, a lot of teams are great places to work. Before I left AWS, I worked on a really good team with intell…

Crazy to think that such a profitable unit like AWS could have teams that are hurting for funding. I guess it’s run like that though.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#42

Post by sullivanmatt »

biohax2015 wrote: post #39
dijit wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are... quite a number of reasons you should give pause to the idea of running AWS hosted elastic. If you’re really up against the wall and don’t want to manage elasticsearch I would highly recommend getting the managed services from Elastic themselves. Support is decent and they’re cost competitive.

> There are... quite a number of reasons you should give pause to the idea of running AWS hosted elastic. Care to share some of these reasons?

I can't go into details, but let me say that someone who would be in the know at AWS, very much off the record, told us not to use their hosted elastic because of how terrible it is.

Some issues: scaling it is manual (a "managed service" that requires direct management to scale is not a managed service lol), the elastic versions supported are usually woefully out of date, limited customer adoption means that the product doesn't get a lot of engineering attention and is just limping along, etc.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#43

Post by ryanianian »

gigatexal wrote: post #41
shitlord wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWS is huge, so YMMV across teams. Some teams have operational and funding issues, so your experience there may be hellish. You could think of it another way and realize that you have your work cut out for you. I previously worked on an AWS team like this and left because I got tired of the grind. On the other hand, a lot of teams are great places to work. Before I left AWS, I worked on a really good team with intell…

Crazy to think that such a profitable unit like AWS could have teams that are hurting for funding. I guess it’s run like that though.

Every company struggles with 'properly' managing funding and resources.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#44

Post by qz2 »

dijit wrote: post #37
finikytou wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well mongodb is a much better product than it was a few years ago. not saying its a good one but... and aws elastic is just a fork of a stable elastic release. it makes sense if the cost is competitive

There are... quite a number of reasons you should give pause to the idea of running AWS hosted elastic. If you’re really up against the wall and don’t want to manage elasticsearch I would highly recommend getting the managed services from Elastic themselves. Support is decent and they’re cost competitive.

Their sales team are awful. They don’t even understand the product they are selling.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#45

Post by qz2 »

sullivanmatt wrote: post #42
biohax2015 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are... quite a number of reasons you should give pause to the idea of running AWS hosted elastic. Care to share some of these reasons?

I can't go into details, but let me say that someone who would be in the know at AWS, very much off the record, told us not to use their hosted elastic because of how terrible it is. Some issues: scaling it is manual (a "managed service" that requires direct management to scale is not a managed service lol), the elastic versions supported are usually woefully out of date, limited customer adoption means that the prod…

That’s what we were told as well. Plus also various things like cross region replication being unavailable. Also things like management ports are not possible to get to.

Edit: also plan to lose everything in it.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#46

Post by throwaway908357 »

djeiasbsbo wrote: post #25

Unrelated but is ACG a good learning platform? I'm never sure with these types of platforms because I am not interested in any certifications and such, so it is hard to tell whether they just teach the stuff needed for these certifications and nothing more...

Their content is absolutely average.

ACG as a company nearly killed Jupiter Broadcasting. JB were able to escape but are facing many years financial hardship due to an overly burdensome litigious culture from ACG after the acquisition of Linux Academy from separating the two businesses.

This split came on the heels of a questionable HR policy implementation around the firing of Joe Ressington. Reverse sexism is apparently OK but casual swearing during a work trip to the pub, is not.

From an ethics perspective, avoid ACG. There's a lot more I could say on all this but I won't - it's hackernews not reddit.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#47

Post by cheesgrateron »

julianozen wrote: post #7

I wonder if Amazon’s theory here is that by offering multi-cloud support they can put decision makers at ease when choosing cloud vendors by making them feel like they’re not getting locked into AWS - but Amazon also expects most customers to mostly only use AWS out of convenience Disclaimer - I used to work for AWS

I've worked as a consultant in this area for years with large F500 companies and not once have I heard anyone actually be concerned with the "lock in" boogeyman. There used to be a lot of concern around general trust of the cloud, which drove people to stick to on-prem servers. But "lock in", IME, is only something people fret about on HN.

What I think is happening is that companies are starting to gain more experience in the cloud and are less intimidated by it. In the past, using just one cloud was scary enough, let alone trying to use 2+ at the same time. But now, with more experience under their belt, companies are realizing that each cloud has its own advantages and disadvantages. AWS is rock solid when it comes to EC2, S3, RDS, Lambda, and some others. But if you have some teams in your company that want to use a PaaS, GCP App Engine is preferable to AWS Elastic Beanstalk. Similarly, your data science or AI/ML teams might prefer to use GCP services over AWS. Or maybe your risk management team is going the full stretch for disaster recovery and says not only do you have to be multi-region within one cloud, but you are required to be multi-cloud as well.

With companies moving this way, I think this is AWS realizing that multi-cloud is inevitable, so they might as well support it, if not embrace it.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#48

Post by randomanon2020 »

rory_isAdonk wrote: post #12
julianozen wrote: post #7

I wonder if Amazon’s theory here is that by offering multi-cloud support they can put decision makers at ease when choosing cloud vendors by making them feel like they’re not getting locked into AWS - but Amazon also expects most customers to mostly only use AWS out of convenience Disclaimer - I used to work for AWS

Is working at AWS hellish? Or once you get in it's just a normal job? I get its heavily dependent on the team, just wondering from your perspective.

I was recently interviewed for AWS, and its a JOKE :), i said i was proficient in Linux and all the questions i was asked was about docker.. and this is just one example out of 100 :)

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#49

Post by gauravphoenix »

martamorena9182 wrote: post #18
julianozen wrote: post #7

I wonder if Amazon’s theory here is that by offering multi-cloud support they can put decision makers at ease when choosing cloud vendors by making them feel like they’re not getting locked into AWS - but Amazon also expects most customers to mostly only use AWS out of convenience Disclaimer - I used to work for AWS

See Jeff Bezos' famous comment: "It is better to cannibalize yourself; than let others cannibalize you" This should answer your question and hint what's to come.

I think it was Steve Jobs https://www.crowdspring.com/blog/if-you-dont-cannibalize-you...

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#50

Post by revel »

heybrendan wrote: post #6

Posts like these always seem buried in deep marketing lingo. Can anyone "in the know" ELI5 how this is different than Google Anthos? [1] If they are in fact similar, I can't help but be left wondering why ACG didn't devote at least a sentence or two to comparisons that already exist in the industry. [1] https://cloud.google.com/anthos

The difference is (just based on what AWS say about ACG) is that anthos comes into its own when managing multiple clusters. The drawback is that all the most common infrastructure requires you to be all-in on GKE and the google stack. If you want to use Cassandra or Postgres, for example, you either manage it yourself or use the google options. The problem with this is that you basically give up all the benefit of having a multi-cloud approach by following this approach. However! If you have a bunch of legacy systems sitting on an on-prem set of self-hosted hardware finally you can mix and match between the on-prem stuff and the GCP managed cluster.

ACG sounds like it can be used to manage hosts and containers; so it's more like enhanced k8s / EKS than a meta layer above kubernetes. This is just my take on this product based on how the marketing lingo talks about it. I'm much more familiar with AnthOS

Post reply on HN