81–90 of 321 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but you don’t need data center engineers, real estate specialists. Power specialists. Etc.
You can rent dedicated server or onprem ? people always go from cloud to building your own cpu in these threads, never in the middle
This is completely false - I imagine they didn't take into account how much the migration and upkeep actually cost them. AWS's promise is not that its infrastructure itself is cheaper in terms of number of servers, or otherwise. Its cheaper in that it helps automate a lot of manual things away.
I had experience in Quartz (BofA cloud), and deploying is 100 times easier than AWS, everything is automated. Imagine building a cloud service where you trust all your clients, and all must share the same information if they have the correct auth, what I trying to say is that their use-case actually made it simpler, that's where the savings in software had came from.
I think a strong argument can be made either way. There's definitely financial savings to be had by doing it in-house (either literally or utilizing existing data centers as here). But what I've experienced is that companies are often attracted to Big Cloud™ not just for financial reasons but to flatten/simplify their corporate reporting structure. It is the ultimate delegation. This isn't simply about having fewer s…
> In this case BoA are saving money but in exchange retain additional layers of staffing, that require oversight, and ultimately decision makers willing to take risks. I think some companies, like BOA, look at this as the safer alternative. We all assume that large Cloud providers are bulletproof. That's just because we haven't seen them taken down yet. Someday we will. Just wait until there's another major world con…
It was about decision maker's personal (career) risk when making decisions. Keeping things in-house means more decisions are taken in-house which increases personal risk to the management for getting things wrong. In context this is much clearer:
> This isn't simply about having fewer staff (although that can reduce internal politics and inefficiencies), but making fewer decisions and more importantly reducing the potential for making the wrong decisions (which can be career-costly, regardless of right decisions made previously).
The post above doesn't discuss cloud Vs. non-cloud security/safety at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but you don’t need data center engineers, real estate specialists. Power specialists. Etc.
You can rent dedicated server or onprem ? people always go from cloud to building your own cpu in these threads, never in the middle
Many large companies save money by having their own cloud, but those clouds sometimes really suck compared to AWS. I know of one very large company where any request for a change in their cloud infrastructure always required a minimum two week advanced notice. In AWS such a change is just a mouse click away, and could be done in seconds. AWS also has a really amazing integration of a large variety of services which i…
> "Now, it's pared that down to 70,000 servers, of which 8,000 of those are handling the bulk of the load." I wonder what the other 62000 servers are doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had experience in Quartz (BofA cloud), and deploying is 100 times easier than AWS, everything is automated. Imagine building a cloud service where you trust all your clients, and all must share the same information if they have the correct auth, what I trying to say is that their use-case actually made it simpler, that's where the savings in software had came from.
So we'll hear about a BoA hack in a few years where the attacker got into the cloud somehow and then had unlimited access to all the other servers? Great. Exactly what I want from a bank. /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just capital or talent. I have seen first hand non-tech executive decision makers pick a specific cloud provider because of the old adage "No one got fired for buying IBM". That momentum is incredibly hard to compete against. Google Cloud is fairly solid from a technology perspective, not to mention Google's deep pockets, and still has an uphill climb against MS and AWS.
GCP may be just as good technologically, but their customer support and especially enterprise support is piss poor.
Oddly enough, they falter in other areas: no equivalent to Kinesis Firehose, and true to your point, I was told by customer service just to build my own DataFlow job to take a Pubsub topic and make files.
It's like some of their product managers have a very customer-first mindset (BigQuery, Pubsub) and some could not care less.
> "Now, it's pared that down to 70,000 servers, of which 8,000 of those are handling the bulk of the load." I wonder what the other 62000 servers are doing.