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

81–90 of 145 posts

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#81

Post by vhold »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #17

Isn't EKS just Kubernetes with custom integrations for various AWS services? If so, how do you meaningfully bring EKS to another cloud without bringing those services? Does EKS call over the public Internet into those other AWS services (and thus lower latency, paying for network usage, etc)? If so, what's the advantage of running EKS anywhere other than on Amazon? Presumably with EKS you can already run your worker…

The EKS Distro blog post answers some of the questions.

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/introducing-amazon-e...

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#82

Post by count »

forrestbrazeal wrote: post #27
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...

ACG employee here so grain of salt, etc - but I paid for an ACG subscription long before I worked there. My favorite piece of ACG actually isn't even the courses, but "Cloud Playground", which came over in the recent Linux Academy acquisition. [0] One-click AWS, Azure, or GCP sandbox environments. They're live for 4 hours on ACG's credit card and people sometimes assume they're just for doing course labs, but, like,…

Licensing and selling the 'don't cost us a million bucks in 4 hours' code monitoring (I hope!) that stuff on the backside would be welcomed by maaaaany large organizations :)

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#83

Post by dv_dt »

dboreham wrote: post #63
cheesgrateron wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 experien…

Anyone who is not concerned about lock in is a fool. There are many fools in business.

I would note that F500 companies are going to have the resources to move out of lock in if it came down to it, and AWS sales management knows it and would have to negotiate costs with that in mind. Smaller scale companies than the F500 that don't have that kind of leverage have to concern themselves more w/ lock-in.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#84

Post by cdcarter »

shitlord wrote: post #54
rory_isAdonk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's great to hear. Often online all you hear are the extremes at both ends. I hear that you're basically put on PIP as soon as you join, any truth to this?

I was never a manager so I don't know the official policies around dev lists and PIPs. Generally, new hires are given a few months to ramp up and become contributing team members. People are usually placed on the dev list if they don't meet expectations, and placed on a PIP if their performance does not improve. I'm guessing it reflects poorly on managers if they devlist someone shortly after hiring them. During my t…

What is the "dev list"

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#85

Post by _alex_ »

tixocloud wrote: post #14
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

That's a possibility. Another one would be more out of regulatory requirement within financial services. By default, most top tier banks would need multi-cloud to even begin thinking about a cloud journey so this offering just puts AWS in the right space with their competitors. It's possible that most of the operational workloads will run on AWS with other cloud vendors being in place as backup/secondary workloads. M…

Not true. I used to work at a very large us bank and while multi-region was a thing the regulators cared about, multi-cloud was not.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#86

Post by [deleted] »

cheesgrateron wrote: post #47
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 experien…

[deleted]

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#87

Post by juancn »

It feels like a commoditize the competition strategy. Essentially the single deployment structure makes your competitors impossible to differentiate other than on price, while still being the access point to the cloud.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#88

Post by sangnoir »

staticassertion wrote: post #73
dboreham wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who is not concerned about lock in is a fool. There are many fools in business.

Lock-In is dead simple to avoid with AWS. Even with Lambda, which people tend to point to and say "lock-in!". Even now we've got lambdas running Docker containers. It's a total boogeyman and I've never heard anyone care about it except on HN, where it comes up constantly.

You seem to be agreeing with parent comment, from where I stand. Lock-in may be simple to avoid, but not many people make any effort to avoid it ("There are many fools in business"). I mean, take a look at the number of companies/services that got knocked offline last week because AWS's us-east-1 was fucky: if they are "locked-in" to one AWS region, do you think they'd bother with decoupling from AWS tech in general?

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#89

Post by MikeTheGreat »

julianozen wrote: post #57
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.

I enjoyed my team and the work hours were reasonable. AWS wasn't the type of product work I wanted to keep pursing, but I learned a lot in my time there. Amazon team's culture vary widely depending on the teams budget, management style and deadlines. Overall I enjoyed my time at Amazon

Several posts here mention the importance of budget/funding for creating a good team to work in (which is 100% reasonable - that's true everywhere).

I'm curious about how individual teams within Amazon have funding problems.

Amazon overall seems to have plenty of money and they seem like the sort of place that wouldn't have a problem dissolving a team that isn't meeting their goals (I'm assuming they'd dissolve the team and then move people they want to keep to other teams, etc - they seem like they'd be very data driven about what teams to keep, not malicious).

Can anyone shed light on how a team might develop funding / budget issues at a place like Amazon?

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#90

Post by heyoni »

dv_dt wrote: post #83
dboreham wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who is not concerned about lock in is a fool. There are many fools in business.

I would note that F500 companies are going to have the resources to move out of lock in if it came down to it, and AWS sales management knows it and would have to negotiate costs with that in mind. Smaller scale companies than the F500 that don't have that kind of leverage have to concern themselves more w/ lock-in.

Didn’t AWS just move some of their infrastructure off of oracle because it basically took them a decade to figure out how?
Post reply on HN