81–90 of 202 posts
These articles are usually pretty honest and non-controversial but bring out all the AWS brainwashed "Cloud Transformation" consultants. They cling to a set of vendor principles drummed into them and can't seem to view other angles. Good 'ole Enterprise IT.
There are passionate people on both sides and usually pretty good reasons for both.
This is kinda obvious, isn't it. Companies have made this observation for years: cloud is very expensive compared to self-hosting. However, * you do not have to spend a large amount of money upfront * cloud's provisioning time is very short * cloud's automated management requires way less man-power to operate
> * cloud's automated management requires way less man-power to operate My experience here is the opposite. I did contracting in the devops space for years, and those of my clients who spent the most on ops were consistently those using cloud providers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something which sometimes gets lost from a US centric perspective is that cloud lets you get servers much closer to the end user without having to establish relationships with hosting companies and colo facilities on another continent. Shaving 100ms off of each request can be useful in a lot of circumstances.
In that circumstance a CDN would likely deliver the same performance.
My goodness is it Monday already and time for yet another of these articles? At a given scale and software maturity, it is cheaper to buy your own hardware and pay for your own team to operate it. Generally, this is when you start thinking of your hardware needs in terms of fractions of an entire data center, but in simple cases may be smaller. This almost is not ever true for software startups, who get more value fr…
Exactly. I cringe every time I look at the AWS/Azure running total, but at the same time I realize that paying a separate team would be even more ludicrous at our current scale.
Right now, I can single-handedly administer 100% of our IT infrastructure as barely a side-concern because nearly everything is inside the Azure/AWS bubble. Delegating IT management tasks to non-wizards is actually feasible too.
The moment you start racking servers on-prem, you need a very specialized workforce to keep them alive. I suppose you could vendor parts of this out too, but then you are really splitting hairs regarding why you brought crap on-site in the first place.
It seems to me that having colo machines for your base loads would be the cheapest, having cloud machines available for flexibility would alleviate scalability / business continunity concerns, and then having them all on cloud networking would allow integration of the managed data services, etc.
Why don't companies just use hosting services such as Hetzner? way cheaper expecially for bandwidth, you don't have to pay the hardware costs, and you can scale
Does anybody have experience with hybrid cloud? It seems to me that having colo machines for your base loads would be the cheapest, having cloud machines available for flexibility would alleviate scalability / business continunity concerns, and then having them all on cloud networking would allow integration of the managed data services, etc.
The integrated network stuff imho is just for people who can't implement proper transport and application layer security.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cloud is cheap when starting. Saves time
Try to run LLaMA in cloud...
Does it make sense to abandon the entire cloud because of 1 use case?
My goodness is it Monday already and time for yet another of these articles? At a given scale and software maturity, it is cheaper to buy your own hardware and pay for your own team to operate it. Generally, this is when you start thinking of your hardware needs in terms of fractions of an entire data center, but in simple cases may be smaller. This almost is not ever true for software startups, who get more value fr…
There are few companies that operate at the scale at where it is cheaper to run your own servers. Once you hit that, it is a great problem to have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * cloud's automated management requires way less man-power to operate My experience here is the opposite. I did contracting in the devops space for years, and those of my clients who spent the most on ops were consistently those using cloud providers.
Chicken and egg, maybe? If ops are more important to me I will not be owning my own infra.
It was almost uniquely down to complexity and e.g working around lack of flexibility (fitting workloads to cloud services and instance sizes rather than fitting the environment to the services).
We'd always run everything under an orchestrator, whether on prem, in colos or in clouds anyway, and with the same monitoring and same redundancy.