4 ms·
It feels like the need for multi-cloud designs and infrastructure are becoming more sensible. If costs are best with one provider, by all means put 95% of your
by mabbo 7y ago
It feels like the need for multi-cloud designs and infrastructure are becoming more sensible. If costs are best with one provider, by all means put 95% of your traffic there... But keeping 5% running smoothly on a second cloud, with a simple means to rebalance between them would be a huge win. It would mean the difference between an annoyance (argh, one of my cloud providers doesn't work) and a disaster (my sole cloud provider just ended my company). It would also save you the next time AWS or Google's cloud have an outage.
Are there any good resources for deploying multi cloud architectures?
- thruhiker 7y agoFor a business, especially a startup, the opportunity cost often makes multi-cloud infeasible. You'd rather spend that engineering time on delivering features or addressing tech debt. I'm of the opinion that multi-cloud doesn't make much sense if your monthly cloud spend is less than at least $500k. Pick one of the strong public cloud providers such as AWS, Azure, or GCP and then be judicious about which PaaS offerings you use to avoid unnecessary vendor lock in unless it adds enough value to justify the lock in.