4 ms·

But all what you described will port, with some adjustments, to a different provider for another decade. This is all to host on one specific host. The money spe

But all what you described will port, with some adjustments, to a different provider for another decade. This is all to host on one specific host. The money spent on planning and architecture is a one time cost and it is very high. Not to mention the much higher cost of ownership over time for hosting on AWS. AWS feels like hosting on IIS back in the day. It was extremely expensive and pointless for more than 50% of their customers, but people kept saying “but we’re enterprise!” and throwing money away until the world finally woke up.

Spooky23 7y ago
AWS is just not a toolset optimized for Wordpress in a SMB/Startup/Hobbyist org. And organizations who do enterprisy stuff on AWS aren't optimized for IT practices that look sane to others. You need this complexity in an enterprise environment because the web teams don't have access to databases, and the DBAs aren't allowed to manage databases outside of the data network, etc. That's why enterprise content management exists. Big companies and public sector value repeatability and seperation of duties over cash and time.
- closeparen 7y ago
  Separation of duties is the root of so much evil. I'm very glad to work in an environment where anyone can submit a change to anything - it just has to go through code review. Same security property: malice requires conspiracy. But also safety against mistakes.
brodouevencode 7y ago
I think you're right on the first half. For monolithic apps, it's expensive to run on AWS. Expensive vs. the DC depends on a lot of other factors so YMMV. 12F apps, microservices, etc. are much _cheaper_ to run on AWS because you don't have to worry about scaling/provisioning/and HA/DR capabilities are basically baked in. A lambda that processes 100,000 requests/day is, on average from the teams I've worked with, significantly cheaper to run than a machine in a DC that is always up.
Hikikomori 7y ago
Why wouldn't the AWS solution be easy to port? Everything is either compatible or based on an open source software or part of basic AWS infrastructure that you likely need elsewhere.
- momokoko 7y ago
  There is an open source or portable Launch Configuration? VPC? Security Group? IAM? etc etc?
  - Hikikomori 7y ago
    Part of basic infrastructure that would be different no matter which cloud provider you choose or if you did it on your own.
laumars 7y ago
Like I said, what was in that document is no different to what you'd need if you were going to run enterprise WP on-prem (or any HA provider for that matter). But if you want something simpler or cheaper to run on cloud hosting then a classic dynamic CMS like WP isn't going to cut it. Where AWS really comes into is stuff like serverless (yeah, I hate that term too), auto-scaling, object storage, etc. I've got a few static sites that are compiled in AWS Code Build whenever I push new markdown to GitHub (literally just using shell scripts and pandoc). They're then pushed to S3 and sat behind CloudFront. It costs me a few dollars a month to host, I don't need to think about scaling and I get near instant page load times. Running that kind of thing on-prem wouldn't even come close to being as cheap nor convenient as AWS. This is why I commented about WP being ill-suited for modern cloud deployments in my edit. To be clear, I'm not claiming AWS are the only hosting providers to offer the aforementioned. The same arguments can be made for and against GCP, Azure and so on and so forth. I'm also not advocating that everyone should switch away from WP or adapt their workloads for the cloud. People should just use what works for them the best. I'm only commenting on why that AWS architecture isn't as insane as it first appears.
unethical_ban 7y ago
Have you built anything in AWS? Have you researched the innards of AWS services and their integration, and the IAM powers to protect resources? I used to unequivocally scoff at "the cloud", but I used to think it was "MySQL as a service" or "VMs as a service" when it is able to be so much more with cloud native tooling.`

Spooky23 7y ago

AWS is just not a toolset optimized for Wordpress in a SMB/Startup/Hobbyist org. And organizations who do enterprisy stuff on AWS aren't optimized for IT practices that look sane to others. You need this complexity in an enterprise environment because the web teams don't have access to databases, and the DBAs aren't allowed to manage databases outside of the data network, etc. That's why enterprise content management exists. Big companies and public sector value repeatability and seperation of duties over cash and time.

closeparen 7y ago
Separation of duties is the root of so much evil. I'm very glad to work in an environment where anyone can submit a change to anything - it just has to go through code review. Same security property: malice requires conspiracy. But also safety against mistakes.

brodouevencode 7y ago

I think you're right on the first half. For monolithic apps, it's expensive to run on AWS. Expensive vs. the DC depends on a lot of other factors so YMMV. 12F apps, microservices, etc. are much _cheaper_ to run on AWS because you don't have to worry about scaling/provisioning/and HA/DR capabilities are basically baked in. A lambda that processes 100,000 requests/day is, on average from the teams I've worked with, significantly cheaper to run than a machine in a DC that is always up.

Hikikomori 7y ago

Why wouldn't the AWS solution be easy to port? Everything is either compatible or based on an open source software or part of basic AWS infrastructure that you likely need elsewhere.

momokoko 7y ago
There is an open source or portable Launch Configuration? VPC? Security Group? IAM? etc etc?
- Hikikomori 7y ago
  Part of basic infrastructure that would be different no matter which cloud provider you choose or if you did it on your own.

laumars 7y ago

Like I said, what was in that document is no different to what you'd need if you were going to run enterprise WP on-prem (or any HA provider for that matter). But if you want something simpler or cheaper to run on cloud hosting then a classic dynamic CMS like WP isn't going to cut it. Where AWS really comes into is stuff like serverless (yeah, I hate that term too), auto-scaling, object storage, etc. I've got a few static sites that are compiled in AWS Code Build whenever I push new markdown to GitHub (literally just using shell scripts and pandoc). They're then pushed to S3 and sat behind CloudFront. It costs me a few dollars a month to host, I don't need to think about scaling and I get near instant page load times. Running that kind of thing on-prem wouldn't even come close to being as cheap nor convenient as AWS. This is why I commented about WP being ill-suited for modern cloud deployments in my edit. To be clear, I'm not claiming AWS are the only hosting providers to offer the aforementioned. The same arguments can be made for and against GCP, Azure and so on and so forth. I'm also not advocating that everyone should switch away from WP or adapt their workloads for the cloud. People should just use what works for them the best. I'm only commenting on why that AWS architecture isn't as insane as it first appears.

unethical_ban 7y ago

Have you built anything in AWS? Have you researched the innards of AWS services and their integration, and the IAM powers to protect resources? I used to unequivocally scoff at "the cloud", but I used to think it was "MySQL as a service" or "VMs as a service" when it is able to be so much more with cloud native tooling.`