3 ms·
Sure, but comparing big cloud to physical box is kind of pointless. The reason for cloud is to save on things like reliability, compliance, maintenance, securit
by mnau 2y ago
Sure, but comparing big cloud to physical box is kind of pointless. The reason for cloud is to save on things like reliability, compliance, maintenance, security, ease of development or scale.
Cloud is really expensive, but so is doing it yourself. Plus there is a plethora of regulations coming this way, NIS2, CRA and so on. If a software is down, it means a lot of lost revenue or extra cost.
If you just need pure compute or bandwidth, there no point in going to the cloud.
How much time was wasted by customer on-premise JIRA not sending emails. It was always... a didn't get email for a long time. Ask them to check it and restart it. Or my recent Win2012 (no R2) end of support and migration. At least the customer does pay for the Extended Security Updates.
- Syonyk 2y agoI'm familiar with the arguments for cloud. I'm also old enough to have been heavily involved in the operation of companies that did all this sort of stuff, on physical hardware, for rather less money than today's cloud offerings cost. And "the cloud" is not a magical wand for reliability, either. How many times a year does one of AWS's regions being down (or something with CloudFlare being down) front page HN, because a substantial swath of the internet has stopped working? I'm not saying cloud is never the right answer. However, I do think that anymore, it's such the "default option" that very few people even consider the possibility of hosting their own hardware somewhere. I'm pretty sure I was the first random individual to come talk to my colo in years, because it sure looks like they spun up a "shared rack" for me.