4 ms·

Lol Sorry to be so harsh, but Google has always been this way. Why do people keep putting essential stuff in someone else's sandbox? Your effectivly adding a

Lol Sorry to be so harsh, but Google has always been this way. Why do people keep putting essential stuff in someone else's sandbox? Your effectivly adding a SPoF, that you have no control over

numbsafari 10y ago
Is Amazon or Azure or Heroku really any different? I've had similar problems in the past with Amazon shutting down services and providing little to no support to get it remediated. Even after paying for technical support, it was impossible to recover (in our case, it was a billing issue that was entirely Amazon's fault). My general recommendations are: - be sure you have fully scripted your deployment process, - be sure you are making remote backups of critical data (often times this is as easy as setting up simple replication of S3 to GCS or Azure's Cloud Storage) - rely as little as possible on their "value added" features - if you do rely on their value added features, be sure you still have someone on staff who can quickly replace it with something minimal (e.g. know how to install your own mysql) At the very least, this will put you in a position where you aren't 100% locked out of your data, or have to completely rewrite your application in order to move to another provider. You don't have to go crazy with some kind of hot failover, or active-active deployment. Just have daily snapshots of your data and mitigate the risk of your PaaS provider. No matter who your hosting provider is, you should probably have this sketched out as part of a "disaster recovery" plan.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  > Is Amazon or Azure or Heroku really any different? Nope, and thats why I don't use them. There are situations where they make sense, but people should be much more skeptical about them. I don't have stats, but IME I've yet to see a company that actually saves money by using them. I've seen one company that did save money the first year, but got too addicted to "just spinning another instance up" and stopped optimizing their code. The next year they were bleeding cash. So, speaking from my experience: It's more expensive, less configurable, and unreliable. Why do people keep buying the cloud lie?
  - markstos 10y ago
    I worked on a project that costs about $5k/month to self-host. After moving it to AWS, it was about $2k/month. So $36k/year savings in hosting costs. In our case outgoing bandwidth at AWS was about 10x cheaper than what our ISP offered. Having spent years help running a physical hosting company, working with virtualized servers saves LOTS of time. I still find it amazing and much, much cheaper in staff-hours to reboot a cluster and have it come back up on 2x larger hardware when a project grows.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      Right, I'm not saying hosted solutions are never the answer, they are just less often the answer than people seem to think. Too many people buy into the cloud-hype, and never look at the numbers until it's too late. And that doesn't even touch the trust you have to have in your provider. And I love virtual more than physical. But I set up my own virtual server and run them myself.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - oneloop 10y ago
        > And I love virtual more than physical. But I set up my own virtual server and run them myself. Where do you keep the machines? In your bedroom?
        CaptSpify 10y ago
        Depends if you mean for work or home. For work, we have a DC. For home, yes, I keep them in my office.
        oneloop 10y ago
        You're paying for a super ninja ultra special internet connection as well? Yikes. Interesting concept though. So your strategy for scaling up is building a data center then?
- oneloop 10y ago
  > Is Amazon or Azure or Heroku really any different? In my last work place we had paid AWS customer service, and they were outstanding.

Lol Sorry to be so harsh, but Google has always been this way. Why do people keep putting essential stuff in someone else's sandbox? Your effectivly adding a SPoF, that you have no control over

numbsafari 10y ago

Is Amazon or Azure or Heroku really any different? I've had similar problems in the past with Amazon shutting down services and providing little to no support to get it remediated. Even after paying for technical support, it was impossible to recover (in our case, it was a billing issue that was entirely Amazon's fault). My general recommendations are: - be sure you have fully scripted your deployment process, - be sure you are making remote backups of critical data (often times this is as easy as setting up simple replication of S3 to GCS or Azure's Cloud Storage) - rely as little as possible on their "value added" features - if you do rely on their value added features, be sure you still have someone on staff who can quickly replace it with something minimal (e.g. know how to install your own mysql) At the very least, this will put you in a position where you aren't 100% locked out of your data, or have to completely rewrite your application in order to move to another provider. You don't have to go crazy with some kind of hot failover, or active-active deployment. Just have daily snapshots of your data and mitigate the risk of your PaaS provider. No matter who your hosting provider is, you should probably have this sketched out as part of a "disaster recovery" plan.

CaptSpify 10y ago
> Is Amazon or Azure or Heroku really any different? Nope, and thats why I don't use them. There are situations where they make sense, but people should be much more skeptical about them. I don't have stats, but IME I've yet to see a company that actually saves money by using them. I've seen one company that did save money the first year, but got too addicted to "just spinning another instance up" and stopped optimizing their code. The next year they were bleeding cash. So, speaking from my experience: It's more expensive, less configurable, and unreliable. Why do people keep buying the cloud lie?
- markstos 10y ago
  I worked on a project that costs about $5k/month to self-host. After moving it to AWS, it was about $2k/month. So $36k/year savings in hosting costs. In our case outgoing bandwidth at AWS was about 10x cheaper than what our ISP offered. Having spent years help running a physical hosting company, working with virtualized servers saves LOTS of time. I still find it amazing and much, much cheaper in staff-hours to reboot a cluster and have it come back up on 2x larger hardware when a project grows.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    Right, I'm not saying hosted solutions are never the answer, they are just less often the answer than people seem to think. Too many people buy into the cloud-hype, and never look at the numbers until it's too late. And that doesn't even touch the trust you have to have in your provider. And I love virtual more than physical. But I set up my own virtual server and run them myself.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - oneloop 10y ago
      > And I love virtual more than physical. But I set up my own virtual server and run them myself. Where do you keep the machines? In your bedroom?
      - CaptSpify 10y ago
        Depends if you mean for work or home. For work, we have a DC. For home, yes, I keep them in my office.
        oneloop 10y ago
        You're paying for a super ninja ultra special internet connection as well? Yikes. Interesting concept though. So your strategy for scaling up is building a data center then?
oneloop 10y ago
> Is Amazon or Azure or Heroku really any different? In my last work place we had paid AWS customer service, and they were outstanding.