4 ms·

Thanks! Exactly that! I always tell that customers and their response is: -But google/facebook/amazon... -But uptime needs to be 99.999 -But everyone uses cl

by nix23 5y ago

Thanks! Exactly that! I always tell that customers and their response is: -But google/facebook/amazon... -But uptime needs to be 99.999 -But everyone uses cloud Most businesses are not a trading-market, have less then 100 peoples (aka you are probably not another amazon), and no bonus using a cloud/kubernetes etc. But it's the same old story, in the 00's i used the ~same arguments against buying OracleDB ;)

CRConrad 5y ago
> But it's the same old story, in the 00's i used the ~same arguments against buying OracleDB ;) But no matter how logically convincing your arguments were, most of the time upper manglement just went on buying Oracle, right...?
XCSme 5y ago
> uptime needs to be 99.999 Isn't AWS down like every two months for a few hours? That's far off the 99.999% mark. No one can guarantee 100% uptime and sometimes it's even better to have that under your control (eg. have a dedicated server and a backup one from different providers). My point is that, if you want the highest possible uptime, you shouldn't rely on a single (cloud) provider.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
And you can tell them all of those are possible, but they need to have a massive budget, not just for the monthly bills but also to hire experts to set things up with those constraints. I worked at a company once that, from higher up, said that they had to have five nines of uptime. We had some really good cloud engineers there (one guy set up a server / internet container for the military in Afghanistan; in hindsight he said they should've just sent a container of porn dvd's), and they really went to town. For that five nines uptime, you're already pretty much required to set up your infrastructure to use multiple availability zones, everything redundant multiple times, etc. Of course, the actual software we wrote was just a bunch of CRUD services written in nodejs (later scala because IDK), on top of a pile of shit java that abstracted away decades of legacy mainframes.
dna_polymerase 5y ago
Either your compute demand is highly elastic, or your revenue and profit scale with usage, otherwise the Cloud is probably not for you. At least not in the longterm or for running websites.
midasuni 5y ago
Get two servers, stick them in different cities. $4k a month and you have resilience. $6k a month and you have resilience and double your throughout. Some stuff makes sense to put on iaas, dns often does for example.
- nix23 5y ago
  4k/mnt for 2 Servers? That's a little bit to much, 200euro for two servers at hetzner is perfectly fine ;)
  - midasuni 5y ago
    I say server, presumably it’s the entire solution of however many servers, storage, network etc. If it’s 2k/month for a non resilient solution, it’s in the order of 4k for a resilient solution (you need to relocate assets both ways but it’s in that order of magnitude)
mro_name 5y ago
any single one of those arguments is cargo-cult actually, isn't it? All means, no end.
- nix23 5y ago
  Well most of them are Non IT businesses, so they just know what peers/family etc told them what todo (or what they do), then read some (oneside-)sponsored media and now they ~know whats best, it's Azure with WindowsServerDatacenter-edition, SQLServer-enterprise and McAffee antivirus ;) but who can be mad about it? It's just not their field of expertise or even interest.
  - mro_name 5y ago
    fair enough, however they juggle the buzzwords. If they didn't but cared about their business (they know I hope) and make hard requirements to IT, that would help. IT should then come up with solutions to those real-world problems. We're not talking just about hobbyists, do we? That's what Eric Evans talks about in DDD as I got it.
    - nix23 5y ago
      > fair enough, however they juggle the buzzwords. Oh absolutely true, you don't want to look completely clueless in front of people who take your money to setup an infrastructure ;) >and make hard requirements to IT, that would help That would make stuff so much more easy. Often it even lacks even a inventory of used applications/hardware....network. Just one example: Made a plan for new hardware and network (new cabling etc), then i walked around the workshop and there was that dusty machine running...i asked what it is...a dos-machine with...wait...TOKENRING. That machine was an integral part of the whole workshop ;) However we made a virtual FreeDOS machine and buy'd a software converter for the machine protocol, the 25yo cnc-machine needed a new card (ethernet instead of token-ring, very lucky we found that thing) so there was that one little DOS-machine no one though about who could stop the whole "modernization".
      - 5y ago

by nix23 5y ago

CRConrad 5y ago

> But it's the same old story, in the 00's i used the ~same arguments against buying OracleDB ;) But no matter how logically convincing your arguments were, most of the time upper manglement just went on buying Oracle, right...?

XCSme 5y ago

> uptime needs to be 99.999 Isn't AWS down like every two months for a few hours? That's far off the 99.999% mark. No one can guarantee 100% uptime and sometimes it's even better to have that under your control (eg. have a dedicated server and a backup one from different providers). My point is that, if you want the highest possible uptime, you shouldn't rely on a single (cloud) provider.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

And you can tell them all of those are possible, but they need to have a massive budget, not just for the monthly bills but also to hire experts to set things up with those constraints. I worked at a company once that, from higher up, said that they had to have five nines of uptime. We had some really good cloud engineers there (one guy set up a server / internet container for the military in Afghanistan; in hindsight he said they should've just sent a container of porn dvd's), and they really went to town. For that five nines uptime, you're already pretty much required to set up your infrastructure to use multiple availability zones, everything redundant multiple times, etc. Of course, the actual software we wrote was just a bunch of CRUD services written in nodejs (later scala because IDK), on top of a pile of shit java that abstracted away decades of legacy mainframes.

dna_polymerase 5y ago

Either your compute demand is highly elastic, or your revenue and profit scale with usage, otherwise the Cloud is probably not for you. At least not in the longterm or for running websites.

midasuni 5y ago

Get two servers, stick them in different cities. $4k a month and you have resilience. $6k a month and you have resilience and double your throughout. Some stuff makes sense to put on iaas, dns often does for example.

nix23 5y ago
4k/mnt for 2 Servers? That's a little bit to much, 200euro for two servers at hetzner is perfectly fine ;)
- midasuni 5y ago
  I say server, presumably it’s the entire solution of however many servers, storage, network etc. If it’s 2k/month for a non resilient solution, it’s in the order of 4k for a resilient solution (you need to relocate assets both ways but it’s in that order of magnitude)

mro_name 5y ago

any single one of those arguments is cargo-cult actually, isn't it? All means, no end.

nix23 5y ago
Well most of them are Non IT businesses, so they just know what peers/family etc told them what todo (or what they do), then read some (oneside-)sponsored media and now they ~know whats best, it's Azure with WindowsServerDatacenter-edition, SQLServer-enterprise and McAffee antivirus ;) but who can be mad about it? It's just not their field of expertise or even interest.
- mro_name 5y ago
  fair enough, however they juggle the buzzwords. If they didn't but cared about their business (they know I hope) and make hard requirements to IT, that would help. IT should then come up with solutions to those real-world problems. We're not talking just about hobbyists, do we? That's what Eric Evans talks about in DDD as I got it.
  - nix23 5y ago
    > fair enough, however they juggle the buzzwords. Oh absolutely true, you don't want to look completely clueless in front of people who take your money to setup an infrastructure ;) >and make hard requirements to IT, that would help That would make stuff so much more easy. Often it even lacks even a inventory of used applications/hardware....network. Just one example: Made a plan for new hardware and network (new cabling etc), then i walked around the workshop and there was that dusty machine running...i asked what it is...a dos-machine with...wait...TOKENRING. That machine was an integral part of the whole workshop ;) However we made a virtual FreeDOS machine and buy'd a software converter for the machine protocol, the 25yo cnc-machine needed a new card (ethernet instead of token-ring, very lucky we found that thing) so there was that one little DOS-machine no one though about who could stop the whole "modernization".
    - 5y ago