4 ms·

Don't forget that Snowflake (implicitly) supports a paradigm where all of your data ends up locked into AWS. It would just cost too much to move it elsewhere.

Don't forget that Snowflake (implicitly) supports a paradigm where all of your data ends up locked into AWS. It would just cost too much to move it elsewhere. Note the (current) top post on this article: > hodgesrm 4 hours ago | next [–] > I'm at AWS re:Invent this week and ... Two themes really stand out in the keynotes and associated presentations: > 1.) Becoming a home for data and ML services backed by hardware technologies like Graviton, Trainium, and stupid fast network connectivity. Amazon has dozens of value-added services from S3 to analytic databases. So if Snowflake is helping AWS succeed in AWS goal 1 ("home for data"), I think AWS is smart enough to help Snowflake grow and prosper.

chrisjc 5y ago
Your data ends up "locked" (as you mentioned, expensive to migrate/replicate) on the cloud platform that your Snowflake instances are running on; AWS, Google or Azure. I'd say it's in ALL of the cloud providers' interests to help Snowflake grow and prosper on their cloud platform. At the moment it really seems that AWS is most successful here since all of the new and more advanced SF features are coming to AWS-based SF first. Then again, SF started on AWS so probably has most of their roots settled there. While data replication across clouds in SF is expensive, I'm sure SF could/might absorb this one-time cost for you if you needed to migrate, esp if there was any sort of threaten from a particular cloud provider (assuming we're talking about internal stages and tables, not external stages/tables). It's really in SF interest to lower this cost (or liability as you might see it) since they're really pushing for a multi-cloud data ecosystem. Just look at their data exchange product and how they're trying to make the underlying cloud platform irrelevant. The only thing really stopping this from taking off is the cost of setting up replicas in an of the regions or clouds that you want to share to or consume from.

chrisjc 5y ago

Your data ends up "locked" (as you mentioned, expensive to migrate/replicate) on the cloud platform that your Snowflake instances are running on; AWS, Google or Azure. I'd say it's in ALL of the cloud providers' interests to help Snowflake grow and prosper on their cloud platform. At the moment it really seems that AWS is most successful here since all of the new and more advanced SF features are coming to AWS-based SF first. Then again, SF started on AWS so probably has most of their roots settled there. While data replication across clouds in SF is expensive, I'm sure SF could/might absorb this one-time cost for you if you needed to migrate, esp if there was any sort of threaten from a particular cloud provider (assuming we're talking about internal stages and tables, not external stages/tables). It's really in SF interest to lower this cost (or liability as you might see it) since they're really pushing for a multi-cloud data ecosystem. Just look at their data exchange product and how they're trying to make the underlying cloud platform irrelevant. The only thing really stopping this from taking off is the cost of setting up replicas in an of the regions or clouds that you want to share to or consume from.