231–240 of 318 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So an anticompetitive practice.
No. Everyone knew what the costs were going in. AWS, cloud was NEVER the cheaper solution. It was never faster, it was never better. It was easier, and easier came with a price. Like lambs to the slaughter lots of people embraced it. Amazon is a profitable company because of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, and I would also put forward that most people don't understand what peering is or how it works. When people (usually developers who are not network engineers and have not worked at that level of the stack) talk about "egress", they mean delivering bits from your network (cloud or otherwise) to any other network on the internet. How can you put just one price on delivering a bit either to a host within the sa…
Like to see the data on that! Would it really be cheaper if they charged granular by cost like old telephone plans where they list each country and c/min + connection charge?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Everyone knew what the costs were going in. AWS, cloud was NEVER the cheaper solution. It was never faster, it was never better. It was easier, and easier came with a price. Like lambs to the slaughter lots of people embraced it. Amazon is a profitable company because of it.
>It was easier, and easier came with a price. I kind of doubt it's easier. If you use your own servers you need some stuff to manage them. If you use cloud, you need some cloud engineers to manage your cloud infrastructure. On top of that, if your developers use cloud APIs and frameworks, they have to learn that.
1: We have a dozen or so regular clients and being in a relatively high salary cost country, while our cloud bill isn't insignificant it's still far less than one full time employee, even less so than having 24/7 on-call handled (we have large enough 24/7 critical clients).
2: The cloud provides broken down billing, it's easy to pass it to the customer and just point to it, having our own employee we would need to structure up the billing process somehow. Our customers are outside of the IT field and doesn't care as long as it works and doesn't cost too much (it's a mostly fixed expenditure and easily separable from our development hours).
3: We have one client that does on-prem (partly out of habit) that's actually looking at parts to the cloud, partly because they've expanded internationally but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a bit of testing the waters since they have to spend a fair bit of their time on security and stability (security doesn't go away entirely of course but I'd be more sure of my backup processes on a large cloud compared to just locally).
4: I'm a tad on the fence of cloud-api's:
On the positive side: No need to implement a bunch of systems(badly?) and no need to build/install monitoring tools for those (and the extra administration burden that comes with updating those tools for X number of clients).
On the negative: There's a tad of churn on some cloud-api's, luckily Azure is mostly stable with plenty of migration time until you come around to a customer again (reading about Goog's churn feels like horror stories), and yes there is a bit of vendor lock-in if you go all-out (luckily we've not seen any reasons to change over).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I saw a hilarious fuck up a few months ago. Company sets up an AWS hosted always on VPN solution. Connects 1000 staff through it. Celebrates how they saved $50k on the VPN solution. Gets $25k AWS bill for the just the first month of egress traffic. Turns out the data was leaving AWS egress three separate times.
AWS VPN base cost is $72/mo + $36/u/mo. So they were spending $80k/mo before?
There was also a global policy rolled out which pushed the VPN client to various infra machines in branch offices. Some of them were running GitHub runners and data processing software which had terabytes of egress per month.
The whole thing was a disaster and they rolled it back within a week.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how were they spending that 50k previously? a bespoke saas thing or self hosting?
Likely they are mixing timelines (one time cost or yearly cost with AWS’s monthly charges). Cisco anyconnect VPN capable appliances (that can do 10GBE) are very expensive, and licenses are per user- so if an appliance needed an upgrade it is conceivable that it could cost $50k in the first year.
Pricing was around 75k for 1000 seats for a year. They thought it was going to be $25k a year but it turned out to be that a month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It was easier, and easier came with a price. I kind of doubt it's easier. If you use your own servers you need some stuff to manage them. If you use cloud, you need some cloud engineers to manage your cloud infrastructure. On top of that, if your developers use cloud APIs and frameworks, they have to learn that.
It's easier but only at the beginning, when the needs are simple and you dream of unpredictable QPS spikes that cloud will magically handle for you, summed up pretty well in https://world.hey.com/dhh/we-have-left-the-cloud-251760fb
I think the bread and butter for the big clouds however are customers like the shop I'm at (see sibling comment), we can do development work and put it on our clients (mostly non-IT that has no interesting in hiring their own department) and if we for some reason need to part ways it's easy to "hand-over-the-keys" since subscriptions can be handed over between organizations.
But getting customers back is usually equally easy since there was never any fuzz when leaving so when they've become dissatisfied with the "cheap" options they don't remember leaving being a problem, regardless the winner is the cloud provider (but the costs are still small enough for each client that nobody is unhappy).
I had no idea it was this crazy expensive. I can host a 1 TB folder of movies on my Google Fiber internet Synology NAS website, and let my friend download it for free. But if I hosted my website on Google Cloud, they bill me $111.60? How are these cloud services getting away with this pricing?
Residential usually has some kind of hard data cap. Like if you transfer >10TB they'll just cut you off. You're also generally barred from running any kind of commercial application.
I had no idea it was this crazy expensive. I can host a 1 TB folder of movies on my Google Fiber internet Synology NAS website, and let my friend download it for free. But if I hosted my website on Google Cloud, they bill me $111.60? How are these cloud services getting away with this pricing?
The cost of egress traffic is a very good reason for many organizations to not fully migrate to a cloud provider anytime soon. And since, unlike with storage costs, there doesn't seem to be an actual reason (other than: it makes migrating to competitors cost-prohibitive in a subset of cases), that seems kind of... weird? Small example: an actual company I do some work for is in the business of delivering creative ass…
What's cheaper with cloud is that you don't need upfront costs, but here, you already have the whole infrastructure already there, up and running.
Why would you even consider getting rid of it and replacing it with AWS, makes no sense.