5 ms·

Why can’t they just backup regularly and redeploy somewhere? Isn’t it as easy as backing up a DB and restoring?

jpollock 6y ago
When you build on top of "linux", yes. However, many cloud services are built on top of S3 or App Engine or other proprietary services. This means that they can only be run on that provider. They can be faster to develop, at the risk of not being able to move later.
- manquer 6y ago
  S3 is not that hard to replace. There are plenty of services like backblaze which provide S3 Api. You can spin up your own service with something like minio. Getting S3 reliability or availablity is lot harder ofcourse, but most apps don't need that.
ashtonkem 6y ago
If you restrict yourself to only the set of AWS functionality that is common to all hosting providers, you can do that. But not only is that very hard to do, it basically negates the premise of AWS in general. There are also lots of areas that you can’t do this, such as IAM and network rules, so you have to build an abstraction on top of it that’ll work with open source tools on a separate host.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  Premise of AWS for me: reasonably priced (not cheap!) linux VM, close to the backbone, essentially total control of the VM, easy provisioning of new disk storage when required (i.e. EC2 with a smidgeon of EBS) The rest of it? I think I understand why some systems need/want it, but no thanks.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Depends on what you’re doing. At the scale $EMPLOYER works at, AWS built in services are key. Things like DynamoDB global tables are extremely hard to run on your own, and things similar to AuroraDB and Kinesis can be run on your own but they take up a lot of personnel hours better spent focusing on product. We could probably eliminate those services and self-run, but it would be an extremely unwise usage of company time and money. But we also run services in multiple continents with the need to handle clients doing silly things like getting into airplanes and flying into another continent. Your situation might not benefit as much from AWS specific services, so YMMV.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      > We could probably eliminate those services and self-run, but it would be an extremely unwise usage of company time and money. Unless $EMPLOYER was Parler ...
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        More precisely, we could do it, but it would probably take years and the result would be inferior to what we have today.
jacquesm 6y ago
They don't even need their own backups anymore.

When you build on top of "linux", yes. However, many cloud services are built on top of S3 or App Engine or other proprietary services. This means that they can only be run on that provider. They can be faster to develop, at the risk of not being able to move later.

manquer 6y ago
S3 is not that hard to replace. There are plenty of services like backblaze which provide S3 Api. You can spin up your own service with something like minio. Getting S3 reliability or availablity is lot harder ofcourse, but most apps don't need that.

ashtonkem 6y ago

If you restrict yourself to only the set of AWS functionality that is common to all hosting providers, you can do that. But not only is that very hard to do, it basically negates the premise of AWS in general. There are also lots of areas that you can’t do this, such as IAM and network rules, so you have to build an abstraction on top of it that’ll work with open source tools on a separate host.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
Premise of AWS for me: reasonably priced (not cheap!) linux VM, close to the backbone, essentially total control of the VM, easy provisioning of new disk storage when required (i.e. EC2 with a smidgeon of EBS) The rest of it? I think I understand why some systems need/want it, but no thanks.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Depends on what you’re doing. At the scale $EMPLOYER works at, AWS built in services are key. Things like DynamoDB global tables are extremely hard to run on your own, and things similar to AuroraDB and Kinesis can be run on your own but they take up a lot of personnel hours better spent focusing on product. We could probably eliminate those services and self-run, but it would be an extremely unwise usage of company time and money. But we also run services in multiple continents with the need to handle clients doing silly things like getting into airplanes and flying into another continent. Your situation might not benefit as much from AWS specific services, so YMMV.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    > We could probably eliminate those services and self-run, but it would be an extremely unwise usage of company time and money. Unless $EMPLOYER was Parler ...
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      More precisely, we could do it, but it would probably take years and the result would be inferior to what we have today.

jacquesm 6y ago

They don't even need their own backups anymore.