7 ms·
This sounds like a good thing. I work for a <1000 employee firm, and AFAIK we're spending in 6 figures monthly with AWS. I cannot even imagine what huge place
by silisili 4y ago
This sounds like a good thing. I work for a <1000 employee firm, and AFAIK we're spending in 6 figures monthly with AWS. I cannot even imagine what huge places spend there.
All it takes is bad support, severe price undercutting, or degrading service and we're off to another, or a split. By having people at least feign caring, giving support, and giving suggestions, they're locking us in and getting way more back in revenue than what it's costing them, at least from us.
- gowld 4y ago> All it takes is [bad things] and we're off to another > By [avoiding those bad things] they're locking us in Providing a good product at a good price is "locking in" ?
- silisili 4y agoWell sure. We're happy with the service and support, so keep deploying more and more. It's not locking in like a gym membership sure, more of a trust relationship. And the more we deploy and use, the harder it would be to jump ship.
- paulmd 4y agoEgress costs alone make leaving pretty much a non-starter once you're entrenched. Leaving really involves running two systems in parallel for a bit and gradually doing a changeover - blue-green in production between two different clouds. Which is not cheap/free either, you are actually going to increase your costs significantly as you leave.
- robocat 4y agoAppropriately sneaky: https://aws.amazon.com/snowmobile/ https://aws.amazon.com/snowmobile/ appears[1] to allow export of petabytes of data but then the FAQ reneges “Snowmobile does not support data export”[2]. [1] tagline: “Migrate or transport exabyte-scale datasets into and out of AWS”. [2] “Q: Can I export data from AWS with Snowmobile?” A: No. in https://aws.amazon.com/snowmobile/faqs/#Using_Snowmobile https://aws.amazon.com/snowmobile/faqs/#Using_Snowmobile
- renewiltord 4y agoThe answer, for the curious, is to use Snowball Edge.
- robocat 4y agoNot an answer for the Exabytes they appear to be falsely advertising they can export in the tagline. A mediocre answer for Petabytes. I agree Snowball Edge is one answer for Terabytes: “HDD storage capacity: 80 TB” - https://docs.aws.amazon.com/snowball/latest/developer-guide/sbe-specifications.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/snowball/latest/developer-guide/...
- factormeta 4y agoHmm, don't think that applies all the time. Herznet is way cheaper than AWS, and in most cases, I don't know why companies won't use it instead of AWS. The only reason people use it from what I know is that helps them with the next job, because everyone is using AWS. Kinda feels like ms and oracle in the 90's.
- mschuster91 4y agoThere are more factors than "nobody got fired for buying IBM" regarding AWS/Azure/GCE: - the Big Three have data centers all over the world. No other provider can match that. (Obviously: if 99% of your customers come from the EU, Hetzner, OVH and friends will be cheaper) - there is a ton of prior experience in managing and provisioning infrastructure on the Big Three. You got Terraform providers covering every oh so tiny resource they have, and for literally every problem you got dozens upon dozens of stackoverflow/serverfault posts. - the Big Three have allll sorts of managed services. No matter if you need cheap blob hosting, virtual servers, bare metal servers without paying setup fees, AI training servers, VPNs, global load balancing/caching, data storage/archival, databases, "serverless" hosting, email, SMS, IoT communication, Active Directory and other identity/authentication/authorization solutions, business data analytics, whatever - it's all a one-stop-shop. No dozens of vendors, bills, payment schedules, GDPR processing agreements, budget issues - one vendor, one bureaucracy, everything you need. It's really bad that the EU never woke up to the rise of the Big Three and say, for example, financed the development of OpenStack to the tune that it could be used by domestic providers, because now the Big Three have all but eliminated the smaller competition.
- drewr 4y agoIf all you want is bare metal on the most interconnected backbone, try Equinix https://deploy.equinix.com/metal/ https://deploy.equinix.com/metal/. We're not as cheap as Hetzner or OVH, but we're just as global as public cloud and will match or beat the latency.
- mschuster91 4y agoHeh fascinating. I thought you guys were purely colo hosters, my employer has a ton of rackspace at one of your DCs.
- tpmx 4y ago<incoherent-stuff/>
- sebzim4500 4y agoTotal spend = 1k * 100k = 100M AWS spend = 500k * 12 = 6M AWS spend / Total spend = 6% Where the hell does 0.1% come from?
- tpmx 4y agoYeah, that was broken. Please ignore. (Sorry!)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago> I work for a <1000 employee firm, and AFAIK we're spending in 6 figures monthly with AWS. The argument for 6 figure cloud spend was always "it'll help you not need as many infrastructure-related dev ops engineers", right? Would you say that's true for your org? Every org I've ever worked at has had 6 figure monthly cloud bill, and the 6 figure monthly payroll bill related to teams working with cloud infrastructure
- dragonwriter 4y agoA six figure payroll bill related to teams working with cloud infrastructure? So, a low-single-digit number of engineers?
- bastardoperator 4y agoConsidering the cost of the infra it would take to replicate some of these services, not to mention bandwidth, DC, and electricity costs, you're probably still saving money. You're absolutely saving on Network Ops and Data Center Ops not to mention the huge investment in gear one has to make. A single server can cost over 100K. Network gear can costs way more. The fact that you don't have to make those investments is the allure. At a certain point, you might outgrow someones else's cloud and build your own, but that divide is a fairly large threshold to cross.
- scarmig 4y agoAnd as far as problems go, "we're so successful that it makes financial sense to build our own on-prem cloud" is a pretty good problem to have.
- xmprt 4y agoI always figured it was the other way around. When you're small it's pretty easy to get by with a stupidly simple solution but as you grow you end up needing to spend much more to build something scalable and at that point, using the cloud makes sense. The biggest success that cloud providers have had is convincing users that they need to spend $100k and that a much simpler $5k solution that's built using off the shelf components just won't cut it.
- Aperocky 4y agoIt seems your infra spend is fairly contained compared just to the human cost of your organization.
- andreygrehov 4y agoAny chance to contact you? Would love to ask a few questions.
- grepfru_it 4y agoGitHub is paying $3-4 million per month. There are EC2 images dating back to 2011 wheeee
- killingtime74 4y agoGithub is not on Azure? TIL
- dan_quixote 4y agoIf so, that's quite the case study on the difficulty of cloud migration!