4 ms·
For us, it's less that I want to run things on more than one cloud at a time. It's that the next time there's a shuffling of the deck-chairs 5 levels above my
by regularfry 6y ago
For us, it's less that I want to run things on more than one cloud at a time. It's that the next time there's a shuffling of the deck-chairs 5 levels above my pay grade and we end up under someone who says "Oceania Web Services is much better than the Eurasia Cloud Platform! We must move everything at once!" it's not a 3 year migration project (by which time, guess what, Eurasia is mysteriously better than Oceania again).
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoIn my understanding the parent talks about having a system run across several clouds at the same time. Thats sounds like madness indeed On another hand, I agreee whole-heartedly that having cross-clound compatiable application is actually quite sane.
- thecrash 6y agoEven if you're not concerned with real-time redundancy, running across multiple clouds is the only way to ensure that a complex system is truly multi-cloud capable. If the system is theoretically multi-cloud but only runs on one in practice, it will eventually drift into a state of dependence on that specific environment, even by accident.
- throwdbaaway 6y agoConsider yourself lucky if "being better" is the only reason to initiate a multiyear cloud migration project. We are doing one at the moment where everything is going to be objectively worse with the new provider. I can probably do multi-cloud with Oceania Web Services and Eurasia Cloud Platform, and still end up spending less money *and* having fewer issues, than using this provider. But your point still stands. Multi-cloud is the way to go.