3 ms·
> If a cloud customer isn't continuously testing a migration they're naive this is a dumb point of view, that only cloud providers (and their employers) can ad
by znpy 6y ago
> If a cloud customer isn't continuously testing a migration they're naive
this is a dumb point of view, that only cloud providers (and their employers) can advocate.
if i'm a company, being "on the cloud" doesn't automatically makes me money. my business makes me money. if every two years i have to waste a year (or even six months) re-architecting then "the cloud" is costing me people money on top of the infrastructure money.
- dragonwriter 6y agoSo, you architect for multicloud once, and then in the event of a cloud provider failure (a high impact but fairly low risk event if you haven't mitigated the impact with a multicloud architecture) you just shift resources to the surviving providers and maybe throw something on the backlog to incorporate a new provider in your multicloud setup, but even if that takes some rearchitecting, the median interval isn't going to be every two years, or, most likely, even every 10. Most enterprises won't do this, either, but it's not because of recurring rearchitecting costs.
- Rule35 6y ago> if ... then "the cloud" is costing me people money on top of the infrastructure money. Yeah. Do you think I disagree? It's not for everyone. > this is a dumb point of view, that only cloud providers (and their employers) can advocate. No, it's the truth. Stuff fails. And if you think that this is the company's messaging you're totally wrong.