4 ms·
> by which metric deploying the pre-packaged code (which takes seconds) into the cloud incurs a higher overhead compared to maintaining an in-house physical rac
by Nursie 2y ago
> by which metric deploying the pre-packaged code (which takes seconds) into the cloud incurs a higher overhead compared to maintaining an in-house physical rack?
In terms of time? Probably not much. In terms of cost, we’ll it’s about scale.
I worked on a project for a big financial firm about 8 years ago, to implement a burst-capacity overflow to cloud strategy for their compute needs. About one week a month or even one week a quarter, they would need a few tens of thousands of extra cores.
At this scale the cloud providers were not really able to react or provision fast enough, and required us to reserve the capacity full time. In the end the costs for “buy and manage more racks” internally worked out cheaper.
- inkyoto 2y ago> […] to implement a burst-capacity overflow to cloud strategy for their compute needs. 8 years ago the cloud did not effectively exist yet. Today the available capacity surpasses the needs of the prevailing majority of cloud customers, with a caveat – see below. > At this scale the cloud providers were not really able to react or provision fast enough, and required us to reserve the capacity full time. A few things have happened since then: 1. Hardware capacity has been ramped up at a very large scale. 2. Most importantly, advances in the workload distribution and optimisation: the cloud control plane distributes workloads to the available capacity across cloud data centres. The caveat. For most demanding customers, cloud providers have a solution called «the cloud appliance». A truck rolls in with the hardware that gets deployed as an extension of your own private cloud within a few days. Deployed software does not notice a difference and gets automatically distributed to the new processing capacity. If that is not enough, another truck rolls in with another «cloud appliance». It is presumed that if one operates at such a scale, they also have the money to pay for it.
- Nursie 2y ago> 8 years ago the cloud did not effectively exist yet Yeah it really did. I’ve been around a while. “Cloud” was becoming a buzzword around the tech industry 16 years ago. 8 years ago we had AWS, IBM, and Microsoft all vying for our business on this project. > For most demanding customers, cloud providers have a solution called «the cloud appliance». A truck rolls in with the hardware that gets deployed as an extension of your own private cloud within a few days None of which was as cost effective as adding more capacity to your own data centres, if you’re already running them at scale, because fundamentally someone is profiting from renting out those cloud appliances. If you have the in-house capabilities already, you can cut out the middlemen.
- yencabulator 2y ago> 8 years ago the cloud did not effectively exist yet. What? AWS EC2 is 17 years old.