5 ms·

The costs associated with "maintaining" usually involve the possibility of a 3am call for whoever is in charge of maintaining. Orchestrating can be done ahead

The costs associated with "maintaining" usually involve the possibility of a 3am call for whoever is in charge of maintaining. Orchestrating can be done ahead of time, during your 9-5, and that's super valuable. It's still a lot of work, but it's work that can be done on my time, at my pace.

throwaway2048 8y ago
Managed services still have plenty of unexplained goings-on, and 3AM pages.
- diminoten 8y ago
  Said like a person who hasn't actually ever converted. It's nothing like that at all. 12 outages since 2011, and none of them are anything like what you're describing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Amazon_Web_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Amazon_Web_Service...
  - bsagdiyev 8y ago
    We've moved from on-prem to AWS fully and we see random issues all the time while their status page shows all green, so I feel you probably have a small amount of resources in use with them or something, because what you're saying doesn't jive with what we see daily. I see you've also copy-pasted your response to other comments too.
    - diminoten 8y ago
      Can you actually quantify any of this or are you asking me to trust you? What I gave is an objective standard, what you've given so far is "trust me I'm right".
      - bsagdiyev 8y ago
        Without breaking my employer confidentiality agreement? No. But you basing off reported outages is you trusting Amazon in the same way you don't trust me, that is, on their word.
        diminoten 8y ago
        I'd rather trust a corporation providing some information over an individual providing absolutely nothing, especially when that corporation's information matches with my own internal information. The reality is, if you're having problems with AWS, it's you, and not AWS, for 99.9999999% of your problems. Continuing to pretend it's AWS is a face-saving, ego protecting activity that no rational person plays part in.
        jacoblambda 8y ago
        While I want to avoid getting into this argument, what you are saying is the same as "well it works on my machine" and "there can't be anything wrong with Oracle Database because Oracle says there are no bugs."
        diminoten 8y ago
        No, what I'm saying is, "None of your problems are consistent across use cases, therefore they're your problems not the system being used." I haven't actually said anything about my own experience, so it's funny you claim I have...
        jacoblambda 8y ago
        "I'd rather trust a corporation providing some information over an individual providing absolutely nothing, especially when that corporation's information matches with my own internal information." Ah, I had assumed that your internal information was from experience, either your own or your organisation's. Since that is not the case I am curious where your "internal information" comes from considering you completely disregarded @bsagdiyev's personal experience.
      - bsagdiyev 8y ago
        Are you just ignoring that the cloud isn't a the savior for everyone because it furthers your own agenda, either publically or personally? We spend the GDP of some nations with AWS yearly, so I guarantee you're not at our scale to see these sorts of issues that most definitely are not caused by us and are indeed issues with AWS as confirmed by our account rep.
        diminoten 8y ago
        There are nations that have very tiny GDPs (and AWS is very expensive) so that's not saying much, and I didn't say AWS was flawless, I said that AWS was a hell of a lot better than anything you could come up with unless you're literally at Amazon scale (and we both know you arent), and nearly none of your software's problems are AWS's fault. Using AWS has been a legitimate excuse for an outage or service delivery issue a dozen times since 2011. The end. Write your apps to be more resilient if you've had more than that many outages at those times (and honestly even those outages weren't complete).
        kbenson 8y ago
        > AWS was a hell of a lot better than anything you could come up with unless you're literally at Amazon scale AWS is a hell of a lot better than most people here can come up with for solving AWS specific set of problems and priorities. But those problems and priorities generally do not match the problem space of the people using it exactly. For example, AWS has a lot of complexity for dealing with services and deployment because it needs to be versatile enough to meet wildly different scenarios. In designing a solution for one company and their needs over the next few years, you wouldn't attempt to match what AWS does, because the majority of companies use only a small fraction of the available services, so that wouldn't be a good use of time and resources. AWS is good enough for very many companies so they appeal to large chunks of the market, but let's not act like that makes them a perfect or "best" solution. They're just a very scaleable and versatile solution so it's unlikely they can't handle your problem. You'll often pay more for that scaleability and versatility though, and if you knew perfectly (or within good bounds) what to expect when designing a system, it's really not that hard to beat AWS on a cost and growth level with a well designed plan. Edit: Whoops, s/dell/well/, but it probably works either way... ;)
      - jrsdav 8y ago
        How about network partitions across availability zones? Happens all the time for us, so much in fact that we had to build a tool to test connectivity across AZs just to correlate outages and find the smoking gun.
      - stephenr 8y ago
        AWS status page is notorious for not indicating there is an issue either at all, or until well after the event began.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    When your Redshift instance locks up, it doesn't end up on Wikipedia.
- aprdm 8y ago
  We moved some stuff from AWS back to on prems because it broke less often and in more obvious ways.

throwaway2048 8y ago

Managed services still have plenty of unexplained goings-on, and 3AM pages.

diminoten 8y ago
Said like a person who hasn't actually ever converted. It's nothing like that at all. 12 outages since 2011, and none of them are anything like what you're describing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Amazon_Web_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Amazon_Web_Service...
- bsagdiyev 8y ago
  We've moved from on-prem to AWS fully and we see random issues all the time while their status page shows all green, so I feel you probably have a small amount of resources in use with them or something, because what you're saying doesn't jive with what we see daily. I see you've also copy-pasted your response to other comments too.
  - diminoten 8y ago
    Can you actually quantify any of this or are you asking me to trust you? What I gave is an objective standard, what you've given so far is "trust me I'm right".
    - bsagdiyev 8y ago
      Without breaking my employer confidentiality agreement? No. But you basing off reported outages is you trusting Amazon in the same way you don't trust me, that is, on their word.
      - diminoten 8y ago
        I'd rather trust a corporation providing some information over an individual providing absolutely nothing, especially when that corporation's information matches with my own internal information. The reality is, if you're having problems with AWS, it's you, and not AWS, for 99.9999999% of your problems. Continuing to pretend it's AWS is a face-saving, ego protecting activity that no rational person plays part in.
        jacoblambda 8y ago
        While I want to avoid getting into this argument, what you are saying is the same as "well it works on my machine" and "there can't be anything wrong with Oracle Database because Oracle says there are no bugs."
        diminoten 8y ago
        No, what I'm saying is, "None of your problems are consistent across use cases, therefore they're your problems not the system being used." I haven't actually said anything about my own experience, so it's funny you claim I have...
        jacoblambda 8y ago
        "I'd rather trust a corporation providing some information over an individual providing absolutely nothing, especially when that corporation's information matches with my own internal information." Ah, I had assumed that your internal information was from experience, either your own or your organisation's. Since that is not the case I am curious where your "internal information" comes from considering you completely disregarded @bsagdiyev's personal experience.
    - bsagdiyev 8y ago
      Are you just ignoring that the cloud isn't a the savior for everyone because it furthers your own agenda, either publically or personally? We spend the GDP of some nations with AWS yearly, so I guarantee you're not at our scale to see these sorts of issues that most definitely are not caused by us and are indeed issues with AWS as confirmed by our account rep.
      - diminoten 8y ago
        There are nations that have very tiny GDPs (and AWS is very expensive) so that's not saying much, and I didn't say AWS was flawless, I said that AWS was a hell of a lot better than anything you could come up with unless you're literally at Amazon scale (and we both know you arent), and nearly none of your software's problems are AWS's fault. Using AWS has been a legitimate excuse for an outage or service delivery issue a dozen times since 2011. The end. Write your apps to be more resilient if you've had more than that many outages at those times (and honestly even those outages weren't complete).
        kbenson 8y ago
        > AWS was a hell of a lot better than anything you could come up with unless you're literally at Amazon scale AWS is a hell of a lot better than most people here can come up with for solving AWS specific set of problems and priorities. But those problems and priorities generally do not match the problem space of the people using it exactly. For example, AWS has a lot of complexity for dealing with services and deployment because it needs to be versatile enough to meet wildly different scenarios. In designing a solution for one company and their needs over the next few years, you wouldn't attempt to match what AWS does, because the majority of companies use only a small fraction of the available services, so that wouldn't be a good use of time and resources. AWS is good enough for very many companies so they appeal to large chunks of the market, but let's not act like that makes them a perfect or "best" solution. They're just a very scaleable and versatile solution so it's unlikely they can't handle your problem. You'll often pay more for that scaleability and versatility though, and if you knew perfectly (or within good bounds) what to expect when designing a system, it's really not that hard to beat AWS on a cost and growth level with a well designed plan. Edit: Whoops, s/dell/well/, but it probably works either way... ;)
    - jrsdav 8y ago
      How about network partitions across availability zones? Happens all the time for us, so much in fact that we had to build a tool to test connectivity across AZs just to correlate outages and find the smoking gun.
    - stephenr 8y ago
      AWS status page is notorious for not indicating there is an issue either at all, or until well after the event began.
- adrianN 8y ago
  When your Redshift instance locks up, it doesn't end up on Wikipedia.
aprdm 8y ago
We moved some stuff from AWS back to on prems because it broke less often and in more obvious ways.