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

141–150 of 202 posts

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

#141

Post by mbreese »

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…

> Hetzner, OVH or even DO aren't even close to offering what AWS offers

But I think the argument is - do they need to be? How much of the services of AWS (Google/azure/etc) are really needed by the majority of customers?

For companies that need hyperscaling services, I get it. There are definite benefits to the cloud when operating at extremes (auto scaling up and down). But for the majority of workloads, I think you could be well served by a more barebones offering.

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

#142

Post by maccard »

JackSlateur wrote: post #133
Agingcoder wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 as…

I ran our CI on fargate at my last job. It was a mess. The time from api request for an instance to it being ready to handle a job was minutes. It was about 50x slower than running on a mid range laptop that I occasionally used for development, and in order to work around that we kept hot EBS volumes of caches around (which cost $$$$ and a decent amount of developer time).

Just before I left I was investigating using hetzner instead - our compute bill would have been about 15% cheaper, we would have had no cache storage costs (which was about 5x our compute costs), and the builds would have finished before fargate had processed the request.

Our numbers were small fry, but we spent more on that CI system than we did on every other part of our infra combined.

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

#143

Post by maccard »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #17
candiddevmike wrote: post #3

I would guess that all of these companies that are moving back are throwing in the towel on their cloud migration/modernization plans under the guise of "repatriation" when it's really poor execution without any responsibility.

It was easy when everyone was spending cheap money for marketing and other vanity around moving to the cloud. But now that money costs something, and everyone has to control costs, repatriation is the new hotness when you want to save opex with capex. Cloud margins are org savings. The trick is to not care, and be proficient as a technologist; you make money either way riding the hype cycle wave. Shades of Three Enve…

One of the things about startups is that if you’ve got any external validation, gcp/aws/azure will give you 2-3 years worth of free credits. When money is tight, free compute goes a long way.

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

#144

Post by kjellsbells »

JackSlateur wrote: post #133
Agingcoder wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 as…

Of course, while this move to cloud native, along the path from IaaS to PaaS to SaaS, saves money on one dimension, it also binds the customer more and more immovably to the cloud vendor...

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

#145

Post by everdrive »

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.

I sincerely doubt 37 signals has "a few dozen servers." Every company I've been in has a huge, sprawling cloud and that no one has governance over. New instances are stood up by individual teams in order to avoid bureaucratic delay, and these propagate indefinitely.

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

#146

Post by nottorp »

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…

> Yep, Hetzner, OVH or even DO aren't even close to offering what AWS offers.

I think it was mentioned in the article what AWS offers. Lock-in.

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

#147

Post by dumbledoren »

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.…

> Server / CPU / RAM / SSD quality

I had no issues with Hetzner's component and especially network quality for a decade now. Before that, yeah, there could be some hiccups and issues. But they stopped being issues a long time ago. And really, what hardware issues do you expect on this hardware:

https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/brands/matrix-d...

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

#148

Post by dumbledoren »

Salgat wrote: post #79
packetlost wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) You may more than pay for that labor in cloud costs, but you can also pretty easily operate rented dedicated hardware with a 3-man team if they know how to do it, the tools to scale are there they're just different. 2) I don't know what your setup looks like, but renting a dedicated server off of Hetzner takes a few minutes, maybe hours at most. My personal opinion is that most workloads that have a load balancer…

Just to clarify, AWS lets you provision bare-metal too if your goal is to just rent hardware someone else is maintaining. And things like trivially distributing load and storage across multiple datacenters/regions is another big bonus for us.

Hetzner has all of that. And cloud. Its just that their dedicated server offerings are SO attractive that people keep mentioning that. Otherwise its not like their cloud offering is also very attractive.

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

#149

Post by ttt3ts »

kuon wrote: post #61
ttt3ts wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, I call BS on 100Gb uplink for $1000. I have racked a lot of servers at different data centers. No way.

I am in Switzerland where you have 25Gbit/s for about 70$/month so I understand that this might be an exception. But even if it is 10 000$/month, it is still widely cheaper than cloud bandwidth. https://www.init7.net/en/

If you don't mind me asking, to where? That is, what uplink do you see to your nearest AWS or gcloud? In the US, advertised residential speeds don't nessarly translate to realized gains. Just pushes the bottle neck to the ISP.

Agreed that either way it is way cheaper than cloud bandwidth.

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

#150

Post by Agingcoder »

tg180 wrote: post #102
Agingcoder wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

In simple terms, yes. The term “native” refers to adopting the vendor’s technology stack, which typically includes managed data stores, containerized microservices, serverless functions, and immutable infrastructure.

Thanks.

I work for a very large org, and cloud benefits are not obvious to me ( ie we’re large enough to absorb the cost of a team managing k8s for everyone, another team managing our own data centers around the world etc ).

I view cloud as mutualizing costs and expertise with other people ( engineers and infra), but adding a very hefty margin on top of it, along with vendor lockin.

If you’re big enough to mutualize internally, or don’t need some of the specific ultra scale cloud products, it’s not an obvious fit to me ( in particular , you don’t want to pay the margin )

I understand that for a significant chunk of people it’s useful provided that they use as many mutualizing levers as possible which is what going native is about.

Is my understanding correct ?

Post reply on HN