3 ms·

Aside from cases where you can just shoot a guest VM in the head and respawn it elsewhere (still relatively uncommon, especially in big vSphere shops), vSphere

Aside from cases where you can just shoot a guest VM in the head and respawn it elsewhere (still relatively uncommon, especially in big vSphere shops), vSphere -> AWS has historically been a mostly one-way migration path, whereby the guest VM that's migrated lands in a new ecosystem that is beyond the reach of whatever vSphere management tools you have on hand (unless you're doing very heavy customization and extension of vRO+vRA). This move opens the gate to more seamless migration of workloads between on-premises vSphere clusters and AWS, and extends native vSphere management and configuration functions into AWS. For big vSphere shops with large investments in the platform (especially those running legacy workloads), this product offering is a very, very big deal. If the costs are right, it will put true hybrid cloud operating models into reach of a lot of Enterprises for which the pricing or level of effort to get there previously didn't make sense.

chx 10y ago
shoot a guest VM in the head? That particular wording indicates you might have been doing Linux HA a little bit too much :)
- GauntletWizard 10y ago
  No, actually, it's very common terminology among people managing large enough installations to "treat servers as cattle, not like pets". Re-deploying the entire service, with a copy of the previous data or without, should be a common exercise.
  - chx 10y ago
    Is it really? I've never heard this particular wording before (and neither had Google, mind you) but it very strongly resembles Shoot The Other Node In The Head (STONITH).
  - ckozlowski 10y ago
    We (I work for AWS) call it "Architecting for Failure", but yes, you could call it that too. =) In an ideal application, instances are a commodity. Not every workload is there yet, so there's a need still for individual instance recovery. But it's something we and our customers strive for.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
user5994461 10y ago
Big vSphere shops with large investments in vSphere should stay in their private datacenters. It's not worth migrating everything. If they want to innovate. They can move to IBM SoftLayer + VmWare on top, which is allegedly a solid offering, while keeping their ways of doing things.
- illumin8 10y ago
  Why should they remain in their private datacenters? In AWS they have access to a wealth of platform services like fully managed relational and NoSQL databases, autoscaling, resilient queueing, data movement, analytics, and data warehousing services. The value in migrating is that you get access to the same VMware hypervisor and ecosystem, but now you have access to a wealth of new data services that are fully managed and much lower cost than building your own. I know this is hard to believe, but in the early 1900s, any large business had a power generator in the basement, because the power grid was unreliable and daily outages were common. How many businesses today have their own power generators? In 2050, how many businesses do you think will have their own datacenters?

chx 10y ago

shoot a guest VM in the head? That particular wording indicates you might have been doing Linux HA a little bit too much :)

GauntletWizard 10y ago
No, actually, it's very common terminology among people managing large enough installations to "treat servers as cattle, not like pets". Re-deploying the entire service, with a copy of the previous data or without, should be a common exercise.
- chx 10y ago
  Is it really? I've never heard this particular wording before (and neither had Google, mind you) but it very strongly resembles Shoot The Other Node In The Head (STONITH).
- ckozlowski 10y ago
  We (I work for AWS) call it "Architecting for Failure", but yes, you could call it that too. =) In an ideal application, instances are a commodity. Not every workload is there yet, so there's a need still for individual instance recovery. But it's something we and our customers strive for.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

user5994461 10y ago

Big vSphere shops with large investments in vSphere should stay in their private datacenters. It's not worth migrating everything. If they want to innovate. They can move to IBM SoftLayer + VmWare on top, which is allegedly a solid offering, while keeping their ways of doing things.

illumin8 10y ago
Why should they remain in their private datacenters? In AWS they have access to a wealth of platform services like fully managed relational and NoSQL databases, autoscaling, resilient queueing, data movement, analytics, and data warehousing services. The value in migrating is that you get access to the same VMware hypervisor and ecosystem, but now you have access to a wealth of new data services that are fully managed and much lower cost than building your own. I know this is hard to believe, but in the early 1900s, any large business had a power generator in the basement, because the power grid was unreliable and daily outages were common. How many businesses today have their own power generators? In 2050, how many businesses do you think will have their own datacenters?