3 ms·

Smaller companies don't necessarily need dedicated infra people regardless. My point is that using "a cloud" doesn't change your level of infrastructure experie

Smaller companies don't necessarily need dedicated infra people regardless. My point is that using "a cloud" doesn't change your level of infrastructure experience/knowledge needs, it just changes what they need to know. .... You're either not reading what I wrote or being deliberately obtuse. I said multiple vendors, in different DCs. The same vendor in two DCs is not as good as two different vendors in two different DCs. I didn't say the companies are naive. I said you are being naive, if you think companies haven't made bad decisions.

scarface74 7y ago
My point is that using "a cloud" doesn't change your level of infrastructure experience/knowledge needs, it just changes what they need to know. It very much does change what they need to know. You don’t need to know how to set up a database with multi region failover, load balancers, server maintenance, switches, routers, storage, firewalls, etc. Have you ever used managed services at any scale? Yes I’ve done both - hosted our own servers in house.
- stephenr 7y ago
  A good chunk of my work is getting clients out of shit situations with "The cloud" because someone drank too much of the "Cloud means no more ops" Kool aid. For most small to medium companies, the alternative to a managed AWS service is not "lets go buy some switches". It's "let's use open source software on rented virtual machines". The "cloud" model is only useful if your staff have no idea how a database server works. If they do, it's going to make a heap of basic tasks harder (and more expensive) because you don't have access to the software itself. I'm done discussing this with you. You can make all the same arguments everyone else does when trying to justify "the cloud", and you won't convince me, because your arguments are, as usual for this type of "discussion" comparing against the most extreme alternatives. Right from the start you've declared literally no cost of being at the complete mercy of a single vendor for your entire infrastructure (and one with a history for dirty tactics to "win" a market) If that approach works for you, good for you. I, and my clients once it's bitten them, aren't willing to do that.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    And your method of getting them out of “shit situations” is not by showing them how to do it correctly - it’s by moving them to something you know. So now, the same people who don’t have the expertise to manage a colo, are now going all of the sudden have the expertise to manage VMs and open source alternatives and know how to manage a fault tolerant multi region database and other HA setups at multiple colos? Again, how much experience do you personally have with actually using cloud services from the big three? I’ve done both, I had to. The cloud vendors didn’t exist when I started. Heck we had a “server room” with raised floors for our “massive” 2TB SAN.

scarface74 7y ago

My point is that using "a cloud" doesn't change your level of infrastructure experience/knowledge needs, it just changes what they need to know. It very much does change what they need to know. You don’t need to know how to set up a database with multi region failover, load balancers, server maintenance, switches, routers, storage, firewalls, etc. Have you ever used managed services at any scale? Yes I’ve done both - hosted our own servers in house.

stephenr 7y ago
A good chunk of my work is getting clients out of shit situations with "The cloud" because someone drank too much of the "Cloud means no more ops" Kool aid. For most small to medium companies, the alternative to a managed AWS service is not "lets go buy some switches". It's "let's use open source software on rented virtual machines". The "cloud" model is only useful if your staff have no idea how a database server works. If they do, it's going to make a heap of basic tasks harder (and more expensive) because you don't have access to the software itself. I'm done discussing this with you. You can make all the same arguments everyone else does when trying to justify "the cloud", and you won't convince me, because your arguments are, as usual for this type of "discussion" comparing against the most extreme alternatives. Right from the start you've declared literally no cost of being at the complete mercy of a single vendor for your entire infrastructure (and one with a history for dirty tactics to "win" a market) If that approach works for you, good for you. I, and my clients once it's bitten them, aren't willing to do that.
- scarface74 7y ago
  And your method of getting them out of “shit situations” is not by showing them how to do it correctly - it’s by moving them to something you know. So now, the same people who don’t have the expertise to manage a colo, are now going all of the sudden have the expertise to manage VMs and open source alternatives and know how to manage a fault tolerant multi region database and other HA setups at multiple colos? Again, how much experience do you personally have with actually using cloud services from the big three? I’ve done both, I had to. The cloud vendors didn’t exist when I started. Heck we had a “server room” with raised floors for our “massive” 2TB SAN.