3 ms·

I think the problem is that we have one network doing many things that need to have builtin redundancy both in terms of messaging and data storage. So putting a

I think the problem is that we have one network doing many things that need to have builtin redundancy both in terms of messaging and data storage. So putting a bank's entire database into Azure or AWS isn't wise in my opinion. Rather, I think the network either needs to be fragmented to serve different sets of customers or the end points need to be improved to the point that onsite hosting becomes the norm again. Centralization is much like specialization in that it can be adopted to the point of diseconomy.

FLUX-YOU 9y ago
>Rather, I think the network either needs to be fragmented to serve different sets of customers or the end points need to be improved to the point that onsite hosting becomes the norm again. Hosting in the cloud is a bet that Azure/AWS can protect your data from physical damage/loss as well. It isn't just a cost-reduction to hire less sysadmins and desk support. They have ginormous amounts of cash to build quality data centers in stable-Earth locations that still have excellent internet connections. Really, the answer is more data centers and cloud hosting companies with replication and cold-storage agreements between them (where sane). But for a lot of companies out there, this is overkill. One cloud provider is more security/safety than they'd likely ever get building their own data center.