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

51–60 of 202 posts

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

#51

Post by doubled112 »

jimt1234 wrote: post #35
kjellsbells wrote: post #13

Kjell's Law: the cost of a platform eventually exceeds the cost of the one it replaced. But each cost is in a different budget. We seem to have replaced cooling and power and a grumpy sysadmin with storage and architects and unhappy developers.

I've never worked in a data center that did cooling and power correctly. Everyone thinks they're doing it right, and then street power gets cut - there's significant impact, ops teams scramble to contain, and finally there's the finger-pointing.

The colo I’m used to has survived multiple switch overs to backup and then to diesel generators without a blip that I could detect.

I say “I’m used to” because having things there has spanned more than one job.

One power outage was days to a week. Don’t recall exactly.

It’s possible to do it right.

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

#52

Post by weikju »

joshdavham wrote: post #26
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.

> That doesn't seem compatible with any kind of major cloud repatriation trend. Agreed. I don't think this is a real trend, at least not right now. Also, fwiw, I'm really not a fan of these types of articles that identify like a small handful of people or organizations doing something different and calling it a "trend".

Submarine like articles trying to create a trend I suppose.

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

#53

Post by nisa »

kuon wrote: post #21

You can have a 100Gb uplink on a dedicated fibre for less than 1000$/month now. Which is insanely less than cloud bandwidth. Of course there are tons of other costs, but that alone can suffice to justify moving out of the cloud for bandwidth intensive app.

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 threshold. I know there is init7 in Switzerland but it's the exception to the rule in Europe it seems. Getting a fast fiber and good transit is still expensive?

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

#54

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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.

"In parallel, GEICO, one of the largest automotive insurers in the United States, is actively repatriating many workloads from the cloud as part of a comprehensive architectural overhaul."

Is GEICO a major enterprise

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

#55

Post by teyc »

efitz wrote: post #40

There are certain workloads that have never been really economical to run in cloud. Cloud economics is based on multi-tenancy, eg if you have a lot of hardware that is sitting idle a lot of the time, then cloud may be economical for you as the cloud provider can share it between you and others. Cloud is also good for episodic use of expensive exotic systems like HPC and GPU fleets, if you don’t need them all the time…

Most enterprises on prem already run VMware for virtualisation, it is the antiquated way of provisioning that affects how slow it is to spin something up on prem. And frequently these antiquated practices are carried to the cloud, negating any benefit.

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

#56

Post by ttt3ts »

kuon wrote: post #21

You can have a 100Gb uplink on a dedicated fibre for less than 1000$/month now. Which is insanely less than cloud bandwidth. Of course there are tons of other costs, but that alone can suffice to justify moving out of the cloud for bandwidth intensive app.

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

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

#57

Post by slyall »

gtirloni wrote: post #24
kjellsbells wrote: post #13

Kjell's Law: the cost of a platform eventually exceeds the cost of the one it replaced. But each cost is in a different budget. We seem to have replaced cooling and power and a grumpy sysadmin with storage and architects and unhappy developers.

We had happy developers before? Amazing.

They are Grumpy because now they are doing Sysadmin stuff

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

#58

Post by kuon »

nisa wrote: post #53
kuon wrote: post #21

You can have a 100Gb uplink on a dedicated fibre for less than 1000$/month now. Which is insanely less than cloud bandwidth. Of course there are tons of other costs, but that alone can suffice to justify moving out of the cloud for bandwidth intensive app.

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.

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

#59

Post by kuon »

gwbas1c wrote: post #47
kuon wrote: post #21

You can have a 100Gb uplink on a dedicated fibre for less than 1000$/month now. Which is insanely less than cloud bandwidth. Of course there are tons of other costs, but that alone can suffice to justify moving out of the cloud for bandwidth intensive app.

Running a service takes more than a fat pipe. You need to handle power outages, need redundant internet connections, ect, ect.

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 something like a streaming video service where bandwidth is the main factor, you can quickly reach a point where self hosting is cheaper.

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

#60

Post by _heimdall »

discodave wrote: post #14
gonzo41 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd agree on IaaS/PaaS being the main driver. Id guess that everyone is running away from serverless offerings from all the main cloud providers. It's just day 1 lock in to a platform with no shared standards. It's very uncompetitive and kind of slow to innovate.

Amazon loves it when you run idle EC2 instances ($$$) rather than using Lambda. Most real workloads I've seen (at 3 startups, and several teams at Amazon) have utilization under 10%.

That's really where you see that no answer is right across the board.

I worked at a very small startup years ago that leaned heavily on EC2. Our usage was pretty bipolar, the service was along the lines of a real-time game so we either had a very heavy work load or nothing. We stood up EC2 instances when games were lice and wound them down after.

We did use Lambda for a few things, mainly APIs that were rarely used or for processing jobs in an event queue.

Serverless has its place for sure, but in my experience it have been heavily over used the last 3-5 years.

Post reply on HN