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

Why Companies Are Ditching the Cloud: The Rise of Cloud Repatriation

thenewstack.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 202 posts

Re: Why Companies Are Ditching the Cloud: The Rise of Cloud Repatriation

#131

Post by littlestymaar »

RateMyPE wrote: post #129
ksec wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

37signals spends more than $3M a year on cloud. So while it definitely isn't a major enterprise. It is also a lot more than a a few dozen servers. I am not anti-cloud and pro cloud. My major problem with the new trend is that a lot of people are basically rediscovering pre "Cloud" era. which is VPS, Dedicated server and Colocation. And people are suggesting Hetzner or OVH or many other players are equivalent to AWS.…

Yep, Hetzner, OVH or even DO aren't even close to offering what AWS offers. Once you start exploring all the things they have to offer you understand why so many large companies use hyperscalers. Although to be fair, most hobbyists only need basic services like cloud servers/VMs, and hyperscalers like AWS are an awful deal compared to other options if you only need compute + storage + bandwidth. You don't need to use…

> you understand why so many large companies use hyperscalers.

While there are valid use-case where you get value from the extra services the hyperscaller are providing, most of the time people go for AWS “because everybody does it” or because the choice was made by a consulting company that doesn't pay the final cloud bill and is optimizing their own added value at the expenses of the customer's one.

I've been doing freelance work for 7 years now for roughly two dozens if companies of various size, and I can't tell you how many massively underused AWS / Azure VPS I've seen, but it's more than half the cloud bills of the said companies (or division for big companies since I obviously only had the vision on the division I worked for and not the whole company).

Re: Why Companies Are Ditching the Cloud: The Rise of Cloud Repatriation

#132

Post by jgalt212 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #126
ksec wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

37signals spends more than $3M a year on cloud. So while it definitely isn't a major enterprise. It is also a lot more than a a few dozen servers. I am not anti-cloud and pro cloud. My major problem with the new trend is that a lot of people are basically rediscovering pre "Cloud" era. which is VPS, Dedicated server and Colocation. And people are suggesting Hetzner or OVH or many other players are equivalent to AWS.…

> 37signals spends more than $3M a year on cloud. Isn’t most of that just S3 storage/bandwidth?

If so, they should move to R2.

Re: Why Companies Are Ditching the Cloud: The Rise of Cloud Repatriation

#133

Post by JackSlateur »

Agingcoder wrote: post #91
WaitWaitWha wrote: post #36

This is partially the result of cloud providers and partially business leadership. They, for whatever reason, insufficiently educated their clients on migration requirements. Lift & shift from on-premises to cloud only work for emergency. The shifted resources must be converted to cloud stack, or the cost will be multiples of on-prem costs. Business leadership was (is?) ignoring IT teams screaming of the problem with…

I keep reading ´ Lift and shift is bad ‘ on HN - what is the opposite of lift and shift ? ( ´cloud native ´ does not mean much to me). Is it that instead of oracle running on a rented vm you use whatever db your cloud provider is selling you, you move your monolith to a service oriented architecture running in k8s, etc ?

lift & shift = move your instances, which are expensive and not at all competitive

cloud native = use more serverless products (pay as you go with no base price)

For instance, one could implement internal DNS using instance which run bind, and connect everything through some VPC, and put a load balancer in front of the instances. One could also rework its DNS architecture and use route53, with private hosted zones associated with all the appropriate VPCs

Another real example: one could have hundreds of instance running gitlab runners, running all day, waiting for some job to do. One could put those gitlab runners into an autoscaled kubernetes, where nodes are added when there are lots of jobs, and deleted afterwards. One could even run the gitlab runners on Fargate, where a pod is created for each job, to run that job and then exit. No job = no pod = no money spent.

Of course, some work is required to extract the best value of cloud providers. If you use only instances, well, surprise: it costs a lot, and you still have to manage lots of stuff.

Re: Why Companies Are Ditching the Cloud: The Rise of Cloud Repatriation

#134

Post by JackSlateur »

kuon wrote: post #58
nisa wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious where do you get 100Gb with Internet transit and dedicated fiber for 1000$/month? I'm in a small town in eastern Germany and looked for a simple Gigabit fiber access for our office without any bandwidth guarantees and it's 1000€/month for 1Gb here with the most budget provider but with some nebulous bandwidth guarantees. I'm not talking about residential fiber that also very expensive after a certain thr…

I'm in Switzerland, so maybe I am biased, I have 10Gbit/s dedicated on a 100Gbit/s link for about 600$/month. In practice I have 25Gbit/s with most datacenters in europe, 100Gbit/s with some that are close (OVH, Hetzner), and 10Gbit/s with the rest of the world.

Is this a home connection ?

Re: Why Companies Are Ditching the Cloud: The Rise of Cloud Repatriation

#135

Post by EraYaN »

michaelt wrote: post #103
bob1029 wrote: post #101

I think control is maybe a bigger factor than cost these days. Being able to hold anyone accountable at all seems to be an operational superpower. Working with cloud vendor support is a torturous experience on a good day. It also doesn't matter how expensive the virtual machine is if there isn't one available to be provisioned. I know it's kind of harsh, but owning the whole vertical and having the power to instantly…

In some regards, absolutely. But remember even when you're doing everything on-prem with your own employees, you're still running software written by third parties. So you might still have an unresponsive third party, just they might be a database vendor instead of a cloud vendor.

Depending on you size, even just having some people from all the open source products on staff is probably cheaper anyway. And gives you pretty good control. And if it used to work the only one that can have broken the config is you, which means you can also fix it. Sure maybe you need to rollback a kernel update or whatever but in the end it's on you.

Re: Why Companies Are Ditching the Cloud: The Rise of Cloud Repatriation

#136

Post by thrw42A8N »

kasey_junk wrote: post #128
thrw42A8N wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No way that is true if you did it properly. Practically nobody has a workload where this could be true - and it's definitely not a workload smaller than several DCs. It doesn't work out well if you just create some long lived EC2 instances and call it a day. But that's not really using a cloud, just a VPS - and that has indeed never been cheaper than having your own servers. You need to go cloud native if you want to…

Any egress heavy workload can quickly cost more on cloud than on prem. Especially if you’ve got consistent egress bandwidth that can be negotiated against.

If it's so heavy that you pay 8x the price of deployment and maintenance of physical servers then you're either very small in which case I'm surprised you don't need the flexibility, or you have many options to make a deal. Don't accept the listed prices.

Re: Why Companies Are Ditching the Cloud: The Rise of Cloud Repatriation

#137

Post by dlisboa »

thrw42A8N wrote: post #124
hggigg wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wise person. Wish we hadn't. Managed to multiply costs 8x (no joke).

No way that is true if you did it properly. Practically nobody has a workload where this could be true - and it's definitely not a workload smaller than several DCs. It doesn't work out well if you just create some long lived EC2 instances and call it a day. But that's not really using a cloud, just a VPS - and that has indeed never been cheaper than having your own servers. You need to go cloud native if you want to…

> No way that is true if you did it properly.

It's quite easier to mess up in a hyperscaling cloud because it's extremely forgiving. In a different setting you wouldn't be able to make as many mistakes and would have to stop the world and fix the issue.

Re: Why Companies Are Ditching the Cloud: The Rise of Cloud Repatriation

#138

Post by maccard »

viraptor wrote: post #112
kuon wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but for example a 10Gbit/s pipe is about 3PB of transfer capacity per month which is about 150 000$/month in S3 traffic. A 40kW UPS which can handle about 2 racks (2x42U) of high density servers, with a generator cost about 50k$. A redundant link with your own AS so you can BGP should cost about 5k$ per month (at least here in switzerland). Of course it really depends on the application, but if you host somethin…

10Gbps is one "teen with a stolen credit card" DDoS event away from being unusable. If you're running a big service that someone may dislike, that's really not enough.

As you’ve already alluded to elsewhere though - you host it behind a cdn or something. A single ec2 instance is just as vulnerable to a teen with a stolen credit card attack.

Re: Why Companies Are Ditching the Cloud: The Rise of Cloud Repatriation

#139

Post by kuon »

JackSlateur wrote: post #134
kuon wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in Switzerland, so maybe I am biased, I have 10Gbit/s dedicated on a 100Gbit/s link for about 600$/month. In practice I have 25Gbit/s with most datacenters in europe, 100Gbit/s with some that are close (OVH, Hetzner), and 10Gbit/s with the rest of the world.

Is this a home connection ?

No, dedicated business fiber from sunrise.

Re: Why Companies Are Ditching the Cloud: The Rise of Cloud Repatriation

#140

Post by kredd »

ksec wrote: post #121
jsnell wrote: post #4

I don't know that 37Signals counts as a "major enterprise". Their Cloud exodus can't have been more than a few dozen servers, right? Meanwhile AWS is growing at 20%/year, Azure at 33% and GCP at 35%. That doesn't seem compatible with any kind of major cloud repatriation trend.

37signals spends more than $3M a year on cloud. So while it definitely isn't a major enterprise. It is also a lot more than a a few dozen servers. I am not anti-cloud and pro cloud. My major problem with the new trend is that a lot of people are basically rediscovering pre "Cloud" era. which is VPS, Dedicated server and Colocation. And people are suggesting Hetzner or OVH or many other players are equivalent to AWS.…

I totally agree, but I’ve also worked on a project with 0 customers spending about $2M/year on AWS, and there was absolutely zero incentive from the stakeholders to reduce the cost. There’s a certain disconnect between boots on the ground engineers, and decision makers when it comes to infra management.
Post reply on HN