5 ms·

> We see this argument anytime a cloud migration comes up and it’s a severe simplification. Here's a less simplified example: https://world.hey.com/dhh/the-big

> We see this argument anytime a cloud migration comes up and it’s a severe simplification. Here's a less simplified example: https://world.hey.com/dhh/the-big-cloud-exit-faq-20274010 https://world.hey.com/dhh/the-big-cloud-exit-faq-20274010

nerdjon 2y ago
Not every company operates at that scale. And if you click their first article about making the decision, they even acknowledged what I said about the ability to scale up and down being a major feature of the cloud and then said that does not apply to them anymore but it also was a big advantage for them at one point. They are an example where moving to their own hardware made sense but for many companies it doesn’t. For me I need to be able to spin up several hundred high power GPU instances for a few hours and then it’s quiet for a couple week. The couple thousand dollars (if that thanks to spot) it costs to run that workload is far better than the cost of that same hardware for machines that would not be doing anything most of the time. So yes you are still over simplifying the situation ignoring that there are real reasons that a company would use the cloud, which your example even references.
- marcus0x62 2y ago
  Here's an example at a much smaller scale. https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm#heavyclouds https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm#heavyclouds Search for "Let me give you a concrete example" if you don't want to read the whole thing. If you want, I can go ahead and find a "medium" sized example for when you respond back that this example was too small. > For me I need to be able to spin up several hundred high power GPU instances for a few hours and then it’s quiet for a couple week. That's great. For you and your application. Nobody is saying there is NO application where the cloud makes sense. I certainly didn't say that. But, there are many, many, applications where IaaS/PaaS ends up being much more expensive than on prem and where the flexibility of the cloud is, if not completely irrelevant, just not worth the extra cost. I'm guessing the scale-out needs of the UK's notification app are going to fall squarely in the category of "way more expensive to run in the cloud," but, hey, who knows? Maybe they sign their notifications in some blockchain ledger on every second Tuesday from 8 - 9:17 AM and need to rent some GPUs occasionally.
  - nerdjon 2y ago
    The reason I responded is your original post gave the impression that you think any workload in the cloud will be cheaper on your own hardware. Which is not true. I am reluctant to try to make any assumptions about the workflow here since I would assume they had ran the numbers to estimate what their cost would be. Possibly looking at their utilization. The nature of what they built does seem to be like it would be a burst application. But the details on that are not here and are just assumptions on both of our parts. Admittedly I responded do you because of this response to your post also: > anyone intentionally migrating infrastructure to the cloud in 2024 hasnt seen the bill, or is spending the taxpayers pound. Which again is a simplification of the situation. It’s a blanket statement that seems more anti cloud than reality. Yes there are workloads that make sense to run on your own hardware, but many, many exist that don’t make sense either.

nerdjon 2y ago

Not every company operates at that scale. And if you click their first article about making the decision, they even acknowledged what I said about the ability to scale up and down being a major feature of the cloud and then said that does not apply to them anymore but it also was a big advantage for them at one point. They are an example where moving to their own hardware made sense but for many companies it doesn’t. For me I need to be able to spin up several hundred high power GPU instances for a few hours and then it’s quiet for a couple week. The couple thousand dollars (if that thanks to spot) it costs to run that workload is far better than the cost of that same hardware for machines that would not be doing anything most of the time. So yes you are still over simplifying the situation ignoring that there are real reasons that a company would use the cloud, which your example even references.

marcus0x62 2y ago
Here's an example at a much smaller scale. https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm#heavyclouds https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm#heavyclouds Search for "Let me give you a concrete example" if you don't want to read the whole thing. If you want, I can go ahead and find a "medium" sized example for when you respond back that this example was too small. > For me I need to be able to spin up several hundred high power GPU instances for a few hours and then it’s quiet for a couple week. That's great. For you and your application. Nobody is saying there is NO application where the cloud makes sense. I certainly didn't say that. But, there are many, many, applications where IaaS/PaaS ends up being much more expensive than on prem and where the flexibility of the cloud is, if not completely irrelevant, just not worth the extra cost. I'm guessing the scale-out needs of the UK's notification app are going to fall squarely in the category of "way more expensive to run in the cloud," but, hey, who knows? Maybe they sign their notifications in some blockchain ledger on every second Tuesday from 8 - 9:17 AM and need to rent some GPUs occasionally.
- nerdjon 2y ago
  The reason I responded is your original post gave the impression that you think any workload in the cloud will be cheaper on your own hardware. Which is not true. I am reluctant to try to make any assumptions about the workflow here since I would assume they had ran the numbers to estimate what their cost would be. Possibly looking at their utilization. The nature of what they built does seem to be like it would be a burst application. But the details on that are not here and are just assumptions on both of our parts. Admittedly I responded do you because of this response to your post also: > anyone intentionally migrating infrastructure to the cloud in 2024 hasnt seen the bill, or is spending the taxpayers pound. Which again is a simplification of the situation. It’s a blanket statement that seems more anti cloud than reality. Yes there are workloads that make sense to run on your own hardware, but many, many exist that don’t make sense either.