4 ms·

There are three things that make sense to me. Firstly, if you are big enough, you can manage/architect your data centre better than a cloud provider. You can a

by twic 7y ago

There are three things that make sense to me. Firstly, if you are big enough, you can manage/architect your data centre better than a cloud provider. You can afford to hire staff to do it, and they can build something specific to your needs. Companies like this should be on-prem. (It doesn't matter if the company is "digital" or not. It could be a huge retail chain, or a government agency, whatever. The only requirement is to be big enough that you have big needs and can afford a big spend on staff.) Secondly, if you are small enough, you really, really don’t want to know about routers, firewalls, the OSI layer, SHA256, RAID arrays, etc. Dealing with that would mean another couple of full-time employees, and you can't afford that. Companies like this should be on a SaaS (ideally one less full of gotchas than Heroku). Thirdly, if you are in between, you have the capacity to deal with system administration, there are some advantages to being able to shape your infrastructure to your needs, but you really don't want to get into real estate and millions of dollars of CAPEX. Companies like this should be on rented physical hardware. What doesn't make sense, at any scale, is renting VMs.

bravura 7y ago
Do you mean PaaS, not SaaS? What other good PaaS exist besides heroku?
- twic 7y ago
  I did mean PaaS, not Saas! Apologies, and thank you! I wish i had a good answer about PaaS. There are hosted Cloud Foundry services. I think CF is more sensible than Heroku, myself. The various serverless platforms are PaaS of a specific kind. I think SalesForce counts. Is OpenShift still a thing?
mwcampbell 7y ago
> What doesn't make sense, at any scale, is renting VMs. I disagree. The big cloud providers will let you rent VMs across multiple availability zones in a single geographic region. That gives you better redundancy than you could get by renting one or more dedicated servers in a single data center. Yes, those same cloud providers offer bare-metal instances, but those are absurdly expensive for a company that only needs small-scale computing power but still cares about uptime.
- twic 7y ago
  If you're small, you can get that redundancy on a PaaS. If you're big enough to move off a PaaS, you can rent physical machines in multiple datacentres.
  - mwcampbell 7y ago
    Size is not the only thing that dictates whether one should use a PaaS. It's entirely possible for a tiny generalist team, or even a single developer, to develop an application whose requirements prevent it from running on a PaaS. But that doesn't mean the team or solo developer should have to handle all the hassles of operating physical servers. (Source: I was that solo developer for many years.)
TheColorYellow 7y ago
I'm not super familiar with Heroku and similar platforms, but if I don't rent EC2s (which I take to mean what you meant by "VMs"), how do I host and serve bespoke backend components? Even if all it does is suck data in, perform some computation, and send it off somewhere else - are you saying there are SAAS providers that are better equipped for this?
PreciousCarrot 7y ago
> Firstly, if you are big enough, you can manage/architect your data centre better than a cloud provider. You can afford to hire staff to do it, and they can build something specific to your needs. Companies like this should be on-prem. It's interesting that competent engineers is only a question about cost to you. Where I am at (north of Europe) it's really hard to find good engineers. Even though it doesn't mean much about competence it's not mandatory for people in the IT industry to have a CS degree even if they're managing infrastructure in the cloud for millions every year. I've been working in the industry at different companies for a bit over 10 years and I would say that a huge majority is just an average person who knows basic concepts about infrastructure but wouldn't be able to design and implement any of it by their own. This includes network infrastructure for the biggest ISPs in the country. I work as a system engineer and the teams I've been working with the last 5 years, independent of company, have been looking for engineers constantly. The pay well and have great benefits but it's just not enough people out there to take these jobs and manage a full on-prem infrastructure. So a part of the money you're talking about that should be used to hire all these really competent people are instead used to pay for cloud services where we know that professional people with far more hardware (and software) knowledge is managing the infrastructure. And this is really convenient for a lot of companies.
- tonyarkles 7y ago
  > The pay well and have great benefits but it's just not enough people out there to take these jobs and manage a full on-prem infrastructure. I’m from a small province in Canada and we have similar problems here sometimes. One of the questions I sometimes have to ask clients when they make a statement like that is: “do you pay well for the area? Or do you pay well enough to attract talent from out-of-province?” This often leads to them arguing that “but the cost of living is low here!” And inevitably I have to mention my friends who left the province to go to the Bay Area for 10 years and came back with $500k USD in stocks they collected, on top of what they had left over after paying their high cost-of-living rent. I feel your pain. Companies running in less desirable areas have to somehow pay a premium for top tier talent. One way, as you mention, is to outsource, whether to cloud providers or part time contractors. This isn’t meant as a brag at all, but I do the independent contractor thing here and make “pretty darned good for the area” money. Inevitably clients will ask me to come work full-time for them, and we have a painful conversation where I tell them what my taxable income was the year before, as well as the investments I made into equipment and licenses I use to provide the services I provide. The result so far has always been to continue being happy with me as a part-time contractor! Edit: sorry for the typos, written on mobile with the swipe text thing

by twic 7y ago

bravura 7y ago

Do you mean PaaS, not SaaS? What other good PaaS exist besides heroku?

twic 7y ago
I did mean PaaS, not Saas! Apologies, and thank you! I wish i had a good answer about PaaS. There are hosted Cloud Foundry services. I think CF is more sensible than Heroku, myself. The various serverless platforms are PaaS of a specific kind. I think SalesForce counts. Is OpenShift still a thing?

mwcampbell 7y ago

> What doesn't make sense, at any scale, is renting VMs. I disagree. The big cloud providers will let you rent VMs across multiple availability zones in a single geographic region. That gives you better redundancy than you could get by renting one or more dedicated servers in a single data center. Yes, those same cloud providers offer bare-metal instances, but those are absurdly expensive for a company that only needs small-scale computing power but still cares about uptime.

twic 7y ago
If you're small, you can get that redundancy on a PaaS. If you're big enough to move off a PaaS, you can rent physical machines in multiple datacentres.
- mwcampbell 7y ago
  Size is not the only thing that dictates whether one should use a PaaS. It's entirely possible for a tiny generalist team, or even a single developer, to develop an application whose requirements prevent it from running on a PaaS. But that doesn't mean the team or solo developer should have to handle all the hassles of operating physical servers. (Source: I was that solo developer for many years.)

TheColorYellow 7y ago

I'm not super familiar with Heroku and similar platforms, but if I don't rent EC2s (which I take to mean what you meant by "VMs"), how do I host and serve bespoke backend components? Even if all it does is suck data in, perform some computation, and send it off somewhere else - are you saying there are SAAS providers that are better equipped for this?

PreciousCarrot 7y ago

> Firstly, if you are big enough, you can manage/architect your data centre better than a cloud provider. You can afford to hire staff to do it, and they can build something specific to your needs. Companies like this should be on-prem. It's interesting that competent engineers is only a question about cost to you. Where I am at (north of Europe) it's really hard to find good engineers. Even though it doesn't mean much about competence it's not mandatory for people in the IT industry to have a CS degree even if they're managing infrastructure in the cloud for millions every year. I've been working in the industry at different companies for a bit over 10 years and I would say that a huge majority is just an average person who knows basic concepts about infrastructure but wouldn't be able to design and implement any of it by their own. This includes network infrastructure for the biggest ISPs in the country. I work as a system engineer and the teams I've been working with the last 5 years, independent of company, have been looking for engineers constantly. The pay well and have great benefits but it's just not enough people out there to take these jobs and manage a full on-prem infrastructure. So a part of the money you're talking about that should be used to hire all these really competent people are instead used to pay for cloud services where we know that professional people with far more hardware (and software) knowledge is managing the infrastructure. And this is really convenient for a lot of companies.

tonyarkles 7y ago
> The pay well and have great benefits but it's just not enough people out there to take these jobs and manage a full on-prem infrastructure. I’m from a small province in Canada and we have similar problems here sometimes. One of the questions I sometimes have to ask clients when they make a statement like that is: “do you pay well for the area? Or do you pay well enough to attract talent from out-of-province?” This often leads to them arguing that “but the cost of living is low here!” And inevitably I have to mention my friends who left the province to go to the Bay Area for 10 years and came back with $500k USD in stocks they collected, on top of what they had left over after paying their high cost-of-living rent. I feel your pain. Companies running in less desirable areas have to somehow pay a premium for top tier talent. One way, as you mention, is to outsource, whether to cloud providers or part time contractors. This isn’t meant as a brag at all, but I do the independent contractor thing here and make “pretty darned good for the area” money. Inevitably clients will ask me to come work full-time for them, and we have a painful conversation where I tell them what my taxable income was the year before, as well as the investments I made into equipment and licenses I use to provide the services I provide. The result so far has always been to continue being happy with me as a part-time contractor! Edit: sorry for the typos, written on mobile with the swipe text thing