4 ms·

Not using the cloud has many hidden risks. You need multiple physical locations for reliability, those now need to be staffed. If you instead use cheaper 3rd

Not using the cloud has many hidden risks. You need multiple physical locations for reliability, those now need to be staffed. If you instead use cheaper 3rd party hosting companies, you may have hurdles to growth and future migration cost since those companies do not have many of the certifications required. From an investor POV, paying a little extra now is often worth it to reduce risk and remove barriers to explosive growth.

tluyben2 6y ago
You are right but that does not really explain why you would spend so much money, masking incompetence usually. Like not having database indexes because 'the cloud scales' which I see all the time. And it does scale, running up bills for rds or dynamo to extreme amounts. And investor dd sees this as a positive, like 'spending as much as possible' somehow means things are going into the right direction. It can be, however, I think spending it like this is a weird trend. I can see the upside for many things, but you can do that efficiently, not costing 5 figures.
treeman79 6y ago
Was part of a company that refused to use AWS. We had migrate our servers 4 times as hosting company kept changing things, then getting purchased by IBM, then IBM was trying to figure itself out. I didn’t kill the company, mostly due to a lot of really hard work. But it came close.
Nextgrid 6y ago
Is that a real problem with a reputable bare-metal hosting provider? I agree that a fly-by-night VPS provider would be a major risk, but OVH for example is a major host in Europe (that successfully hosted websites long before the "cloud" was a thing). They have all the major certifications and have been in the business for two decades now and their uptime is solid. The only risk I can see is the lack of managed services, but Postgres isn't that hard to manage yourself, and other value-add AWS services can still be used (the cost savings of your baseline load being on bare-metal would most likely still offset the bandwidth costs of moving data between AWS managed services and your bare-metal host).
- roguas 6y ago
  Sure cherrypicking postgres since it has more experience as "on-prem". Try and replicate s3 type of service for me or something like sns - even without fancy stuff.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    You can still use S3 even without being on AWS, though for more reasonable (< 1TB) amounts of data, old school local storage served by Nginx does the trick. For SNS, what does it offer that RabbitMQ doesn't? I've always found RMQ to be rock-solid and wouldn't use SNS anyway.
- ok123456 6y ago
  I just call our OVH services "the could" to placate people.

tluyben2 6y ago

You are right but that does not really explain why you would spend so much money, masking incompetence usually. Like not having database indexes because 'the cloud scales' which I see all the time. And it does scale, running up bills for rds or dynamo to extreme amounts. And investor dd sees this as a positive, like 'spending as much as possible' somehow means things are going into the right direction. It can be, however, I think spending it like this is a weird trend. I can see the upside for many things, but you can do that efficiently, not costing 5 figures.

treeman79 6y ago

Was part of a company that refused to use AWS. We had migrate our servers 4 times as hosting company kept changing things, then getting purchased by IBM, then IBM was trying to figure itself out. I didn’t kill the company, mostly due to a lot of really hard work. But it came close.

Nextgrid 6y ago

Is that a real problem with a reputable bare-metal hosting provider? I agree that a fly-by-night VPS provider would be a major risk, but OVH for example is a major host in Europe (that successfully hosted websites long before the "cloud" was a thing). They have all the major certifications and have been in the business for two decades now and their uptime is solid. The only risk I can see is the lack of managed services, but Postgres isn't that hard to manage yourself, and other value-add AWS services can still be used (the cost savings of your baseline load being on bare-metal would most likely still offset the bandwidth costs of moving data between AWS managed services and your bare-metal host).

roguas 6y ago
Sure cherrypicking postgres since it has more experience as "on-prem". Try and replicate s3 type of service for me or something like sns - even without fancy stuff.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  You can still use S3 even without being on AWS, though for more reasonable (< 1TB) amounts of data, old school local storage served by Nginx does the trick. For SNS, what does it offer that RabbitMQ doesn't? I've always found RMQ to be rock-solid and wouldn't use SNS anyway.
ok123456 6y ago
I just call our OVH services "the could" to placate people.