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

131–140 of 145 posts

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#131

Post by yelling_cat »

abiro wrote: post #19

Don’t read too much into this — they are just catching up with GCP and Azure here. AWS has a history of introducing half-assed products with great fanfare when the lack of such a product could be a disadvantage for customer acquisition (think Beanstalk, Cognito or Amplify).

I can't think of a better description of their EKS launch than "half-assed product introduced with great fanfare when the lack of an alternative to GKE was a disadvantage for customer acquisition." EKS had much improved when I last played with it around a year ago, though.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#132

Post by Nullabillity »

renewiltord wrote: post #123
Nullabillity wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Oops, your outgoing bandwidth is now 1000x more expensive"

I wouldn't worry about it. This doesn't happen. More likely to fail trying to be independent of all vendors than to be locked into a vendor. It's only half a million dollars to egress 10 PB from S3. You'll be fine.

I wouldn't worry about global pandemics. They don't happen.

It's also worth keeping in mind that Amazon themselves are a poster child of this kind of thing, with their Oracle migration. If it took them a decade, what hope do you have?

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#133

Post by renewiltord »

Nullabillity wrote: post #132
renewiltord wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't worry about it. This doesn't happen. More likely to fail trying to be independent of all vendors than to be locked into a vendor. It's only half a million dollars to egress 10 PB from S3. You'll be fine.

I wouldn't worry about global pandemics. They don't happen. It's also worth keeping in mind that Amazon themselves are a poster child of this kind of thing, with their Oracle migration. If it took them a decade, what hope do you have?

Oh yeah, definitely. Definitely do not plan for that eventuality. Right now, we're in one so you have to be aware but when not in one, don't plan for it or mitigate that risk in any appreciable form.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#134

Post by crb002 »

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

Bezos wants you controlling everything from AWS, be that your own servers with GreenGrass or GCP/Azure through managed Kubernetes.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#135

Post by hrez »

qz2 wrote: post #67
stingraycharles wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man I remember, whenever we needed to update a cloudformation template that triggered an ElasticSearch modification it was horrible. And of course, after waiting 1.5h, some dns change failed and it had to be rolled back and you just wasted half a day. Fun times.

That reminds me of that time I had to do a snapshot on an EBS volume that had Jenkins on it. Took five days to do a 2TB volume. Local VMware about ten minutes. Edit: I notice a flurry of downvotes arriving since US woke up. Must be Amazon team coming on line :)

AWS mislabeled something that is a "backup" (delta copy to s3) as a "snapshot". That's not what is called snapshot in the storage world. Granted ESX snapshots aren't exactly that either.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#136

Post by dwild »

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.

Any big enough business have no trouble moving out from theses lock in though.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#137

Post by dwild »

scarface74 wrote: post #104
bpodgursky wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is easily 10x harder to migrate from on-prem to a cloud, than it is to migrate between clouds. The big cloud providers are all functionally REALLY similar, if you're mostly using the big components: - Object storage is basically identical, often even down to common API wrappers - VMs are VMs - Kubernetes is Kubernetes. Containers are containers. - EMR is Dataproc is whatever Azure has - BigQuery is Redshift is wha…

Just tell that to your PMO and have them give you an estimate about how long it will take to migrate. Then talk to your developers and infrastructure folks and let them do a (bad) estimation about how long it will take to remove all of the hidden dependencies. That’s not even including the training involved. At the same time, your competitors are actually trying to create products that meet their customers needs whil…

> Just tell that to your PMO and have them give you an estimate about how long it will take to migrate.

Ask the same in your own infrastructure. They'll give even worse estimate.

The thing with the cloud, is that it's public, they all follow the same stuff and their goal is for you to migrate to them. They got an hundred similar situation as yours.

> At the same time, your competitors are actually trying to create products that meet their customers needs while your resources are tied up in migrations.

How is that different from your own infrastructure? If you have to migrate, you have to migrate... whatever is the source and whatever is the destination, migration is migration.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#138

Post by StellarTabi »

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…

> But "lock in", IME, is only something people fret about on HN.

Lock in is a _very real problem_, but often you hear on HN scare mongering that making any decision at all is "lock in".

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#139

Post by scarface74 »

dwild wrote: post #137
scarface74 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just tell that to your PMO and have them give you an estimate about how long it will take to migrate. Then talk to your developers and infrastructure folks and let them do a (bad) estimation about how long it will take to remove all of the hidden dependencies. That’s not even including the training involved. At the same time, your competitors are actually trying to create products that meet their customers needs whil…

> Just tell that to your PMO and have them give you an estimate about how long it will take to migrate. Ask the same in your own infrastructure. They'll give even worse estimate. The thing with the cloud, is that it's public, they all follow the same stuff and their goal is for you to migrate to them. They got an hundred similar situation as yours. > At the same time, your competitors are actually trying to create pr…

That’s true and this isn’t an AWS vs Azure vs GCP argument.

Once you decide to move from on prem to either of the cloud providers you get the benefits of being able to take advantage of scale efficiencies, letting another company do the “undifferentiated heavy”, elasticity (not having to provision for peak capacity), a global infrastructure, quick provisioning of resources etc.

Yes depending on your use case, you can gain benefits from moving off prem/colo to any cloud provider. The benefit once you move to any of the providers to switch providers is negligible.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#140

Post by im3w1l »

cheesgrateron wrote: post #125
Nullabillity wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagined faster time to market. In reality, you just end up spending more time trying to debug black boxes.

I think you must have a limited mindset of how long it can take wheels to turn in large companies. Without cloud, it's not uncommon for the F500s I've worked at to take literal months (90+ days) just to provision and stand up a new server for an application team to even begin developing on. Even if you spend time "debugging black boxes" (which is highly debatable), most of the time you're still moving a lot faster wi…

Why don't they give the application team a few extra servers to do whatever on without asking for permission?
Post reply on HN