Live data from Hacker News

Move Back to Datacenters

rakkhi.substack.com

1–10 of 97 posts

Re: Move Back to Datacenters

#2
The conclusion completely handwaves the massive overheads that come with not only owning your own infrastructure, but also having to manage a complex platform stack and its security.

The security points, which the main points hinges on, seem hyperfocused and in most cases misguided.

Redshift is not internet facing. If your Redshift is internet facing, you've messed up somewhere.

The CPU attack example given is for AMD ZEN, which the most common AWS workload CPUs aren't. Further, the benefit of using a cloud provider is that they put mitigations in place for most exploits, whereas running your own stack means it's now on you; running your own stack does not excuse you from having to put mitigations in place.

In the examples again, the speed to market's problems are a reflection of your organisation, not the cloud.

Stepping back a little, I'm thinking (as terrible as it is) that this is a case of blaming the tools, but never yourself; a lot of the problems the author is seeing seem very specific to their observations but are a poor use and poor understanding of AWS in general.

Overall not a great article, with a headline designed for people who already dislike AWS/GCP/Azure.

Re: Move Back to Datacenters

#4
> I used to “sell” computer leases about 20 years ago saying hey don’t buy a computer, rent it and upgrade it in a year. Turns out the fine print was terrible.

This prompts the question of "So, what are you selling this year?"

I'm sympathetic to on-prem and datacenters, but maybe all the reaction GIFs are distracting the CIO/CTO from the new fine print?

Re: Move Back to Datacenters

#5

The conclusion completely handwaves the massive overheads that come with not only owning your own infrastructure, but also having to manage a complex platform stack and its security. The security points, which the main points hinges on, seem hyperfocused and in most cases misguided. Redshift is not internet facing. If your Redshift is internet facing, you've messed up somewhere. The CPU attack example given is for AM…

not to mention that the obvious/incremental move is not to completely exclusive DC, but to simply cheaper providers with managed VMs, then dedicated (but still managed) HW, and there's a long tail of that before breaking ground for a new DC makes any sense. somewhere along there's Oxide's "cloud in a rack" thing.

Re: Move Back to Datacenters

#6

Naturally the first vulnerability they point out was never exploitable for cross-VM attacks on any major cloud provider at any point…

Thats a strong statement we only know about breaches that have a) being identified b) publicly disclosed

Re: Move Back to Datacenters

#7

The conclusion completely handwaves the massive overheads that come with not only owning your own infrastructure, but also having to manage a complex platform stack and its security. The security points, which the main points hinges on, seem hyperfocused and in most cases misguided. Redshift is not internet facing. If your Redshift is internet facing, you've messed up somewhere. The CPU attack example given is for AM…

I agree on the security part, and what about the cost argument? I think I've seen a few companies switching over to data centers due to the costs they can save money on moving from the clouds, and I also think mature orgs prefer cap ex and depreciation to op ex (although I am not far from clueless on this point)?

Re: Move Back to Datacenters

#9
post #6

Naturally the first vulnerability they point out was never exploitable for cross-VM attacks on any major cloud provider at any point…

Thats a strong statement we only know about breaches that have a) being identified b) publicly disclosed

It requires concurrent execution on the same core of multiple VMs, which none of the major cloud providers do (at least on machines new enough to have Zen cores).
Post reply on HN