4 ms·
I wonder if that is really true or: 1) The reseller doesn't know how it runs over Azure (I had this with vendors sticking to in-house Sharepoint vs Sharepoint
by thebouv 11y ago
I wonder if that is really true or:
1) The reseller doesn't know how it runs over Azure (I had this with vendors sticking to in-house Sharepoint vs Sharepoint online mostly from a "we don't know how" angle we found out)
or
2) Does the reseller also make money from in-house vs on Azure? Like, their hardware? Anything like that? Just curious.
I mean, he could also honestly think that Azure isn't there yet either. I could just be curmudgeonly and doubting the reseller.
- acveilleux 11y agoSometimes with heavily DB bound apps, it's a performance/scalability issue. Doubly so if the app's DB relies on aggressive locking for most/all of its transactions. You can do it with clouds but you often pay through the nose for the adequate storage (or cheat with 512GB of RAM these days.) I've seen folks spend 3-4x more money (almost all of the excess to the SAN vendor) to get a VMware setup (because snapshots and VMotions) with the same reliable I/O a commodity Dell server with a 4-disks SAS Raid-10 and a decent RAID controller can deliver, not even talking SSDs here.
- toyg 11y agoSo much this. We always said to use "the right tool for the right job", isn't it? There are a lot of apps for which virtualized infrastructure is just not a good fit from a technical standpoint. When these end up in the cloud because suits decided OpEx is sweeter than CapEx, they suffer horribly; the customer ends up paying more (because prolonged I/O spikes in the cloud can be hugely expensive), the application runs slower than it did 5 years ago on commodity hardware, and nobody is happy. Still, suits decided cloud it must be, so cloud it will be. Sometimes the IT sector is depressing.