My company recently migrated from on-premise to AWS to “save money”; in the first month we now have test environment instances which we shut down outside of business hours because of high cost.
Great, so work gets done slower AND we pay more? Fucking genius.
If you need something running 24/7 then on-prem may work out cheaper for you. Keep in mind you need a team of server monkeys to keep that running, and your company’s security certifications will come nowhere near that of a major cloud provider.
Cloud is good for elastic workloads. And you can save money that way if you’re set up for it. A simple lift and shift will always be more expensive. But doing things like moving build tasks to spot instances and auto scaling capacity in peak periods is a huge win. No need to over provision your DC and no need to upgrade your hardware – generally AWS releases new products at roughly the same price as old but with increased performance. You get upgrades “for free”* with no capex.
Again I’m not saying that your circumstance means that cloud isn’t more expensive. But there are medium term benefits.
AWS refused to offer hybrid as an option for years. They’ve changed their tune in the past 5 or so. No reason not to take advantage and do what mix makes sense for you.
I used to be on a team of 10 people that installed & managed roughly 3,000 servers and associated networking gear. We got hit hard in the early 2000’s by the Capacitor Plague and it fell on me to identify around 700 faulty motherboards and manage their replacement.
@boatswain@egrets same as firing staff only to use more expensive contractors to do the same job, or selling a building you own only to rent the same building from someone else. It doesn’t come from the same budget line, because it’s lower risk, in the sense that you could in theory just stop paying the money if your strategy/situation changes, and you won’t have ongoing expenses just from “owning” the thing. In reality you’re usually still locked in, just paying more.
You’re gonna get some “git gud scrub” responses, but really the high cost is just what everyone discovers; it’s just your turn.
In both my jobs I went through the eager take-up of (pub) cloud and saas schemes, and then the eventual 90% repatriation of compute.
Turns out it’s still cheaper to run your own team with your own prov-cloud gear in a DC. Like, usually by a good amount. Yes, Virginia, even if you’re a black belt cloud master of saas (which is just sales and kool-aid).
My company recently migrated from on-premise to AWS to “save money”; in the first month we now have test environment instances which we shut down outside of business hours because of high cost.
Great, so work gets done slower AND we pay more? Fucking genius.
Cloud is a sick joke to capture revenue.
Are you counting in the cost of running on prem? Hardware, aircon, building security, electricity, hardware tech support?
I can’t argue, but there are benefits.
If you need something running 24/7 then on-prem may work out cheaper for you. Keep in mind you need a team of server monkeys to keep that running, and your company’s security certifications will come nowhere near that of a major cloud provider.
Cloud is good for elastic workloads. And you can save money that way if you’re set up for it. A simple lift and shift will always be more expensive. But doing things like moving build tasks to spot instances and auto scaling capacity in peak periods is a huge win. No need to over provision your DC and no need to upgrade your hardware – generally AWS releases new products at roughly the same price as old but with increased performance. You get upgrades “for free”* with no capex.
Again I’m not saying that your circumstance means that cloud isn’t more expensive. But there are medium term benefits.
AWS refused to offer hybrid as an option for years. They’ve changed their tune in the past 5 or so. No reason not to take advantage and do what mix makes sense for you.
Not to self-promote, but I have expressed my opinion on the topic.
Wait until you will need a team of people to optimize cloud costs.(finops) for peak irony.
Get customer to platform
Lock in customer
Raise costs
Profit
lmao
I miss having data centres.
It was fine to run a SQL query that took 6 hours because the cost was a few dollars.
Now that cost is thousands of dollars.
Hurray!
I used to be on a team of 10 people that installed & managed roughly 3,000 servers and associated networking gear. We got hit hard in the early 2000’s by the Capacitor Plague and it fell on me to identify around 700 faulty motherboards and manage their replacement.
I don’t miss that at all…
Thankfully I’m not in IT, but I worked at a place that ordered a batch of faulty drives.
That was a pain in the ass.
Yeah, but it’s OpEx, so it’s just imaginary expenditure.
I’ve heard this before but I still can’t wrap my head around why some money counts and some doesn’t
@boatswain @egrets same as firing staff only to use more expensive contractors to do the same job, or selling a building you own only to rent the same building from someone else. It doesn’t come from the same budget line, because it’s lower risk, in the sense that you could in theory just stop paying the money if your strategy/situation changes, and you won’t have ongoing expenses just from “owning” the thing. In reality you’re usually still locked in, just paying more.
Still seems like voodoo to me
Creative business accounting.
Because it’s someone else’s fault.
You’re gonna get some “git gud scrub” responses, but really the high cost is just what everyone discovers; it’s just your turn.
In both my jobs I went through the eager take-up of (pub) cloud and saas schemes, and then the eventual 90% repatriation of compute.
Turns out it’s still cheaper to run your own team with your own prov-cloud gear in a DC. Like, usually by a good amount. Yes, Virginia, even if you’re a black belt cloud master of saas (which is just sales and kool-aid).