4 ms·

It's probably more cost effective to negotiate a long-term max price with your cloud provider with a force majeure clause.

scarface_74 3y ago
Unless you’re crazy enough to work with GCP, the “my cloud provider is going to lock me in and then raise prices” doesn’t happen. AWS has only raised prices in a few very obscure cases ever. One of which is putting a price on HEAD requests in S3 (?). AWS already gives long term price discounts/guaranteed prices for reserve pricing and Big customers already have negotiated contracts.
- Narkov 3y ago
  Price increases are just one way you can get screwed. You can also lose out when your provider doesn't drop prices or pick up operating efficiencies that other providers have.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    And when has that happened with respect to either GCP, AWS or Azure at a level that it’s worth migrating? Even if you have done everything in a “cloud agnostic” way, “infrastructure has weight”. Any large migration isn’t just technical , it involves project management, organization training, regression testing, compliance testing, security testing, architecture review boards, vendor negotiations, firewall changes, coordination with third parties who may only allow list certain IP addresses, data migration, etc. Heck they often have multiple physical network connections to the cloud provider (Direct Connect) Anyone who thinks they can run everything on K8s and they have “cloud agnosticism” has never done a very large scale migration. You would be amazed how long it takes to do a bog standard lift and shift of a hundreds of plain jane VMs and VM hosted databases. You can’t get anymore cloud agnostic than that. source: I’ve done a few over the years in both the “real world” and working in the cloud consulting department at AWS (Professional Services). I no longer work at AWS and have no specific loyalty to AWS.
    - dehrmann 3y ago
      The other thing I'd add is cloud agnosticism doesn't scale. If everyone were prepared for it, there wouldn't be enough elastic capacity with other cloud providers. You'd need enough reserved capacity in another cloud to pull it off, but I guarantee you finance will say "no." What makes the most sense is multi-region work since it's more cost effective, and it's the more likely failure scenario.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        There usually isn’t enough elasticism if a region fails. You really even then need to have reserved capacity and maybe even a hot standby or active-active.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      >And when has that happened with respect to either GCP, AWS or Azure at a level that it’s worth migrating? Egress price makes it worth migrating away from those three.
      - intelVISA 3y ago
        Whilst there are some nice toys e.g. Spanner, there's generally little other reason to tolerate the abusive pricing of 'the cloud' ime
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        You’ve never been the one neck to choke when things go wrong have you? If Billy Bob’s cloud provider goes down, you are going to constantly be blamed for making a poor decision. If anything goes wrong they are going to question your decision. If you choose AWS (or Azure) and a region goes down - everyone else is down too. “No one ever got fired for choosing IBM”. Choosing the most popular vendor - AWS, Salesforce, ServiceNow, or whatever vendor is in the upper right Gartner magic square quadrant never gets questioned by the powers that be.
        charcircuit 3y ago
  - dehrmann 3y ago
    That's a long-term concern, though. The thing to worry about is a rug-pull, but no major provider will do that. They could, but they won't.
- CHY872 3y ago
  The size of the savings you can negotiate is a function of how locked in you are. A big customer will get discounts well beyond reserved instances, in response for (usually) committing to increase their expenditure above where it is. The better your competing offer, the better the negotiating position. And while Amazon hasn’t gotten more expensive per se, it’s certainly not gotten cheaper.

scarface_74 3y ago

Unless you’re crazy enough to work with GCP, the “my cloud provider is going to lock me in and then raise prices” doesn’t happen. AWS has only raised prices in a few very obscure cases ever. One of which is putting a price on HEAD requests in S3 (?). AWS already gives long term price discounts/guaranteed prices for reserve pricing and Big customers already have negotiated contracts.

Narkov 3y ago
Price increases are just one way you can get screwed. You can also lose out when your provider doesn't drop prices or pick up operating efficiencies that other providers have.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  And when has that happened with respect to either GCP, AWS or Azure at a level that it’s worth migrating? Even if you have done everything in a “cloud agnostic” way, “infrastructure has weight”. Any large migration isn’t just technical , it involves project management, organization training, regression testing, compliance testing, security testing, architecture review boards, vendor negotiations, firewall changes, coordination with third parties who may only allow list certain IP addresses, data migration, etc. Heck they often have multiple physical network connections to the cloud provider (Direct Connect) Anyone who thinks they can run everything on K8s and they have “cloud agnosticism” has never done a very large scale migration. You would be amazed how long it takes to do a bog standard lift and shift of a hundreds of plain jane VMs and VM hosted databases. You can’t get anymore cloud agnostic than that. source: I’ve done a few over the years in both the “real world” and working in the cloud consulting department at AWS (Professional Services). I no longer work at AWS and have no specific loyalty to AWS.
  - dehrmann 3y ago
    The other thing I'd add is cloud agnosticism doesn't scale. If everyone were prepared for it, there wouldn't be enough elastic capacity with other cloud providers. You'd need enough reserved capacity in another cloud to pull it off, but I guarantee you finance will say "no." What makes the most sense is multi-region work since it's more cost effective, and it's the more likely failure scenario.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      There usually isn’t enough elasticism if a region fails. You really even then need to have reserved capacity and maybe even a hot standby or active-active.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    >And when has that happened with respect to either GCP, AWS or Azure at a level that it’s worth migrating? Egress price makes it worth migrating away from those three.
    - intelVISA 3y ago
      Whilst there are some nice toys e.g. Spanner, there's generally little other reason to tolerate the abusive pricing of 'the cloud' ime
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      You’ve never been the one neck to choke when things go wrong have you? If Billy Bob’s cloud provider goes down, you are going to constantly be blamed for making a poor decision. If anything goes wrong they are going to question your decision. If you choose AWS (or Azure) and a region goes down - everyone else is down too. “No one ever got fired for choosing IBM”. Choosing the most popular vendor - AWS, Salesforce, ServiceNow, or whatever vendor is in the upper right Gartner magic square quadrant never gets questioned by the powers that be.
      - charcircuit 3y ago
- dehrmann 3y ago
  That's a long-term concern, though. The thing to worry about is a rug-pull, but no major provider will do that. They could, but they won't.
CHY872 3y ago
The size of the savings you can negotiate is a function of how locked in you are. A big customer will get discounts well beyond reserved instances, in response for (usually) committing to increase their expenditure above where it is. The better your competing offer, the better the negotiating position. And while Amazon hasn’t gotten more expensive per se, it’s certainly not gotten cheaper.