41–50 of 223 posts
Man, I did not have "AWS us-east-1 will only have TWO 9s this year" on my bingo card.
Been a while since I worked in cloud but at least when I got out of it, the primitives where all shoring up to be generally very similar. Did multi cloud redundancy end up being too expensive? Tech didn't line up enough? No good business case? The elastic cloud story that never was? https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/pets-vs-cattle-the-elas... What happened?
This is the situation for my company that started with the intent of being platform agnostic, but it quickly became much less complex as all of the potential client pool was using the same cloud. People with buckets with large amounts of data are not going to be able to convince the bean counters that it would be worth it to have that storage bill from multiple vendors.
https://health.aws.amazon.com/health/status?path=service-his...
Been a while since I worked in cloud but at least when I got out of it, the primitives where all shoring up to be generally very similar. Did multi cloud redundancy end up being too expensive? Tech didn't line up enough? No good business case? The elastic cloud story that never was? https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/pets-vs-cattle-the-elas... What happened?
All the cloud providers have cheap compute but ludicrously expensive network egress. Trying to multicloud will stick you with a massive traffic bill, which is probably not a coincidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a justifiable expense when no one else is resilient against their AWS region going down either. Also cross-cloud orchestration is quite dead because every provider is still 100% proprietary bullshit and the control plane is... kubernetes. We settled for kubernetes.
Also if you can't even do cross region, cross cloud won't happen
Can someone educate me on the solution to this? I assume most organizations, both small and large, just host on whatever provider they know or that costs them the least. If you have budget maybe you deploy to multiple providers for redundancy? But that increases cost and complexity. Who’s going to bother with colo given the cost / complexity? Who’s going to run a server from their office given ISP restrictions and do…
Rent servers from a local provider. It's cheaper, you get more control over the hardware, but most of all, it avoids correlated failures.
For most of what I run these days, I'd rather just have someone else run and administer my database. Same with my load balancers. And my Kubernetes cluster. I don't really care if there is an outage every 2 years.
Wow, thanks experts! I never could have figured this out without you :)))
We already have diversification. You can rent a VPS from hundreds of possible companies. And people are very happy with them, it seems every month or two there’s a post here about how some company slashed their cloud bill by switching to a VPS. What we have here is a lock-in and marketing problem.
Companies are using higher-level "PaaS" suite of services from AWS such as DynamoDB, RedShift, etc and not just the lower-level "IaaS" such as basic EC2 instances or pure containers. Same "lock-in" situation with using the higher-level services from MS Azure and Google Cloud.
For those dependent on high-level services, migrating to a VPS like Hetzner or self-hosting is not possible unless they re-invent the AWS stack by installing/babysitting a bunch of open-source software. It's going to be a lot more involved than just installing a PostgreSQL db instance on a VPS.
It’s only a single region. If anything it shows how many people just double down on the default without any redundancy.
We already have diversification. You can rent a VPS from hundreds of possible companies. And people are very happy with them, it seems every month or two there’s a post here about how some company slashed their cloud bill by switching to a VPS. What we have here is a lock-in and marketing problem.