4 ms·
“Everything You Expect from a Cloud, Running on Your Terms“* Except you own ops, management, extension, interoperability, access, security, scalability, redund
by nostrebored 11mo ago
“Everything You Expect from a Cloud, Running on Your Terms“*
Except you own ops, management, extension, interoperability, access, security, scalability, redundancy… words cannot express how ridiculous all of the koober propaganda is
- gdubya 11mo agoExactly. https://www.reddit.com/r/kubernetes/comments/u9b95u/kubernetes_iceberg_the_bigger_picture_of_what_you/ https://www.reddit.com/r/kubernetes/comments/u9b95u/kubernet...
- almosthere 11mo agoIt's crazy to me how many people deploy unmaintainable spaghetti mess in all other environments I've been in. "koober" environments are the most organized.
- nostrebored 11mo agoI find this to be an insane argument. I have never seen a k8s environment that wasn’t a garbage heap. But everyone is eager to tell you what a nice can they’ve found next to the rotting banana. Onboarding new team members? A disaster. The design? All done by one dumpster diver with nobody to call them out on the mistakes because they have no idea what the hell is happening. I’ve never seen a k8s shop where there weren’t a few principal engineers being roped from incident to incident because teams couldn’t manage their own. With cloud providers, even ones we don’t use, people have a general idea of how the primitives work. With any reasonably skilled team you get back to talking about how your product works instead of talking about persistent volume replication for Postgres backups or the differing file system behavior or what cli everyone should be using to manage your entire company’s software or how to stop someone from deleting the entire of everything you own or or or
- pyrale 11mo agoAll things people used to own 10 years ago. It’s not like the people doing that stuff have vanished. Cloud’s big promise was speed to market and price, and let’s be honest, price is no longer there compared to a decent operation. The one thing where clouds remain kings is speed for small teams. Any large enough company should probably Ask themselves whether running their own operation using ias would be a better choice.
- bushbaba 11mo agoMy company is on prem, spending north of 1 billion per year. Cloud is actually cheaper when considering total cost of ownership. Thats salaries, opex, capex costs. Worse, our speed to delivery is generally worse. Because on prem is inelastic, we are at sub 10% peak utilization of compute resources. If we added in the likely higher cloud utilization rate we are talking of 30%+ savings from on prem.
- bakies 11mo ago> we are at sub 10% peak utilization of compute resources so... you bought way too much hardware?
- stackskipton 11mo agoThat's not unusual. First off, sometimes 1000 extra dollars will get you a ton more compute you need so why not and second, on prem tends to be extremely inelastic so you buy a ton of compute because you never know when compute requirements change.
- bakies 11mo agoIf we're talking on the scale of $1,000s then it's cheaper to run on-prem than in the cloud. It's really easy to spend $1,000 on managed kubernetes and have very little actual compute.
- ecshafer 11mo agoPeak Utilization is a tough one for on prem and is a decent argument for cloud. I was at a company that was also at <10% peak utilization most of the time. It was finance, so it was mostly doing nothing, except for the couple days a year where we shot up 10000x, so we had to build for that case. So yeah losing the data centers, and cloud was a cost savings.
- senderista 11mo ago
- mikeocool 11mo agoAnd particularly the upgrades every 3 months. Not just your nodes and masters, but every operator you use, and your manifests each time they deprecate a manifest beta version.
- LeSaucy 11mo agoIve found nomad to be a much simpler replacement for smaller scale deployments.
- bakies 11mo agoYou have to pick your battles. Most of this stuff isn't necessary to babysit until you're scaling your app tremendously. And by the time you're doing that I'm sure you've got the people to do these things.
- dilyevsky 11mo agoIt’s a well known thing that if you run on ec2 they handle all those things for you (especially the security part)
- icedchai 11mo agoI wonder how many people will miss the sarcasm. ;) Cloud means you don't need any ops people, right?
- nostrebored 11mo agoThey do manage almost all of them for you. If you’d like we can get some of the EC2 engineers on our team to tell you how. If you don’t think IAM is a better set of semantics for securing your infrastructure than nightmarish k8s rbac i really don’t know what to tell you. Can you think back to your batch and honestly tell me that the companies that used k8s are in a better place?
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- JoshTriplett 11mo agoThe way I've described this for years: Kubernetes makes managing 1000 servers as easy as managing 20 servers, and makes managing 3 servers as easy as managing 20 servers.
- bob1029 11mo agoMost products barely need 1 server.
- bakies 11mo agoAnd if you ever outgrow that it's going to be a huge pain. Or a hardware failure. If you start on Kubernetes early you'll be able to add more servers for capacity very easily. Not to mention out of the box you get failover and HA. And you can deploy managed services and have database deployments, or object stores, etc.
- eikenberry 11mo agoBut 99% of the time you don't outgrow it and don't have SLA's requiring them to have failover or HA. This is why so many sites can get away with using PostgreSQL with it's complete lack of good/native HA.
- bakies 11mo agoHA and failover, to me-in these small deploys, is more about hardware maintenance rather than maintaining SLAs. Being able to shutdown the computer hosting your containers to scale vertically.
- spwa4 11mo agoSingle-site-2-absurdly-intense-days failover, yes. With weeks of cleanup afterwards. What every company seems to want: multisite, multimaster immediate failover, no. Also kubernetes buys you scaling. Compute. Disk. Database (with help). Etc. Now I rail against companies for wanting that, and I think you're right. Your webshop does not need that. It has so many moving parts the redundancy will cause more outages than it solves. But you can do this, and so people will pay for it. It is a technical accomplishment. And with sufficiently good sysadmins, it can work well, and scale.
- jameson 11mo agoOps cost to number of server to manage is logarithmic but cloud cost is linear, so there's an intersection it starts to make less sense for cloud. Also equipment depreciation is tax deductible whereas cloud bill isn't. A year of EC2 instance bill is comparable to buying the equivalent server Also there are vendors renting out datacenters so you do less of hardware management. Having worked at two companies spending 250M+ on cloud bills alone, they try hard to decouple from cloud but many things are vendor locked Hybrid has been the answer to both. It shouldn't be a binary decision. stateless compute workload can fairly easily be offloaded to private cloud.
- raducu 11mo ago> Also equipment depreciation is tax deductible whereas cloud bill isn't. Genuine question out curiosity (I have a master in finance, but never practiced it) -- aren't both the cloud bill and depreciation all tax deductible, eventually? the bill 100% in that year and the depreciation spread over multiple years? > Hybrid has been the answer to both. It shouldn't be a binary decision. stateless compute workload can fairly easily be offloaded to private cloud. Can you elaborate on that? I'm studying for saa-c03, and I was shocked by how expensive egress out of aws can be.