Sure. You just need more people to keep an eye on what your consumption rates are. Or to handle access control systems or manage service accounts and client certificates, ensure firewalls, additional tooling around firewalls to ensure things aren’t getting exposed outside. Countless cost projections on top of a complicated billing system.
I mean. You save the headcount in one area and you consume it in another. And you pay overhead in outsourcing costs.
It’s likely worth it. But you need to determine that on a case by case basis.
My (large) company is too incompetent to do hosting properly so cloud was a blessing for us.
> Sure. You just need more people to keep an eye on what your consumption rates are. Or to handle access control systems or manage service accounts and client certificates, ensure firewalls, additional tooling around firewalls to ensure things aren’t getting exposed outside. Countless cost projections on top of a complicated billing system.
At a certain scale, you need all these things with internal clouds too. Resource provisioning, basic security, and managing "insider risk" don't just go away when you own the infrastructure.
How so? Presumably someone with an internal 'cloud' needs someone to be responsible for a large kube cluster, to handle a uniform way to do scheduling/resource management, etc. Having an engineer who knows how to do this in AWS doesn't seem more expensive than an engineer who can roll their own internal 'cloud' system...
> Countless cost projections on top of a complicated billing system
I think it's a loooot easier to design and build a cost-efficient multi-tiered high availability application than it is to make reasonable cost projections in whatever micro-currency every seconary and tertiary service uses.
And I'm ever surprised by how time-intensive it is.
You can outsource the physical data center and connectivity without paying massive premium for a software stack which in many ways requires more expertise to operate at scale and redundancy than the in-house alternative, while costing an order of magnitude more money and locking you into a potential competitor’s ecosystem.
Yeah we literally turned our $7k a month AWS bill into $1k a month by changing to 3 dedicated servers (Fully managed!) and cloudflare. It's better in every conceivable way.
We were able to cram a large set of applications into a group of instances using CapRover.
Instead of 2-3 instances, and a whole bunch of RDS, we ended just recreating the databases there along with minio for storage (we write a small amount of data to S3 storage).
what instance types were you using? do the dedis have the same specs as the ec2 instances? what about contracts (do you have one on the dedis?) are you only using servers or other aws services?
Colocation is another in-between. Build your own server, but the racks / datacenter / power delivery / real estate / network is all rented from another group.
Colocation is probably ideal for anyone using custom hardware: like GPUs or FPGAs. If you're using "normal" CPUs, just buy dedicated instances instead.
Ya, I feel like this must be coming from the younger crowd who is just used to seeing all the cloud marketing comparing cloud computer to building your own data center.
Anyone who has been in the industry since pre-cloud explosion knows that most people just rented bare metal and at the more complicated end they might purchase their own hardware and colocate.
And for those that own their servers, many lease them and HP or Dell or whoever maintains them on site if anything goes wrong.
Yes, this also seems weird to me. And I think it might be a cultural thing, I noticed that in Europe renting dedicated servers is far more popular than in the US.
IDK where you get the 'wages are a lot lower in Europe' thing. There are lower cost and higher cost places, but people are expensive and talent is mobile.
I don’t know, in the Bay Area 150k is entry level and big companies pay 250k or much higher to senior engineers. Whenever I hear about pay in Europe it’s a fraction of that. It may be worth it for a different lifestyle, I’m not making that argument. Regardless, from the company POV it must lead to different choices about buy vs. build.
Bay area or NYC sure, that's like being in London, but what about the Midwest, or any of the places where you can easily set up an IT shop without paying a premium for space?
- Get your own bedroom.
- 30 minute commute.
- Not everyone you meet will be in tech.
- You'll be rich compared to everyone else in town.
- Partner with local academic institutions to offer recognized research projects and training. 20% time or 3 month project stints etc. Adjunct professor ships for people with an existing research record.
- Throw in X free flights to east/west coast, home town etc.
there’s 30 minute commutes in san diego, la and sf if you live in the right areas. what about weather? cali has really nice weather. schools / doctoral candidates / etc are basically useless in the real world. if i’m making enough money the free flights are useless. nothing you said here makes me want to move to the middle of the US. exactly what i’m looking at is the lack of opportunity. say i decide to move for some job and hate it. now what? pick up the family and move again?
Renting bare metal is exactly how the business worked prior to the rise of EC2. e.g Rackspace, Linode.
You can rent vs buy at any level : rent only machines, rent a 1/2 a rack, rent a full rack, rent a cage, rent 1/2 a dc, and so on.
Same with connectivity: you can plug your machines into a lan managed by the hosting provider, or run your own routers and peer with their in-house ISP, or you can buy peering directly in the building, or you can rent lightpath from a telco with pop in the building, or you can go rent a backhoe and start trenching across the parking lot...
Sure you do, you’re just blending them into the rate, at a significant margin.
Cloud is awesome for companies where the capital investment needed to deliver the SLA is too expensive.
If you’re big, and you run the numbers, lots of services are better in a datacenter that you manage. Many of the early advantages of cloud tools aren’t a differentiator today. If anything, the granular billing is a nightmare to manage in many large enterprises. There’s a reason AWS heavily targets .gov customers — the Feds probably waste billions on idle services.
I’ve found that the shitty to support or known workload services are best somebody else’s problem. Email is an example of both. Most other things are trading IT complexity with accounting complexity.
Counterpoint: Granular billing of real money can actually drive behavioral changes in ways that fake money and/or letting one department slide because you’re hoping it’s head will rubber stamp your promotion doesn’t.
If you reduce companies to "developers hiring developers, led by a couple of business people," how resilient will that company be? I'd say it keeps them at a disadvantage for either elimination or acquisition, but dependent nonetheless.
Maybe cloud usage can be an indicator whether a company has plans to maintain independence into the future, despite the loyalty-engendering words of leadership.
