[HN Gopher] Bitbucket Cloud has landed in AWS
___________________________________________________________________
Bitbucket Cloud has landed in AWS
Author : adatta02
Score : 12 points
Date : 2021-11-17 21:00 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (bitbucket.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (bitbucket.org)
| nemothekid wrote:
| A common post I see on HN is "why is Company X using the cloud,
| don't they know, at their size, doing it themselves would be
| cheaper?"
|
| As more and more companies are moving to the cloud, I'm assuming
| that a lot of smart people have done the math and have decided
| Cloud is more efficient.
| sieabah wrote:
| What is almost never considered is that these large
| corporations don't pay public pricing. It's all negotiated to
| be heavily discounted. Bandwidth is hardly an issue like it is
| for regular customers.
| dijit wrote:
| The truth is somewhere in the middle.
|
| I'm a sysadmin, I know hardware. I think it's a complete myth
| that hardware is hard: especially compared with the irreducible
| complexity that is AWS.
|
| But: I find myself coming back to the cloud.
|
| Why? It costs more and you have less control. Scale up is not
| as important as it seems and the 10x cost difference would mean
| scale is not a factor either.
|
| But, in my experience, not dealing with an IT department is the
| main reason.
|
| Hardware lead times can be high, sure, but there is nothing
| more frustrating than depending on someone to do their job and
| they do it bad.
|
| The "efficiency of scale" is almost entirely in the tooling,
| certainly not the cost, when it comes to cloud.
|
| I keep coming back because even though compute is not hard, nor
| networking for that matter: distributed storage is still hard.
|
| I have three on-premise servers now and dealing with the IT
| team is.. well, let's just say I prefer to deal with the cloud
| vendor.
|
| The number of people hired to manage the cloud tends to be the
| same number as hired to deal with on-prem.
|
| I've been in a company with many hundreds of physical machines
| to manage and a team of 4, and I've been in a company with
| infrastructure that handles a similar use-case on cloud in a
| team of 5.. So I don't buy the headcount argument honestly.
| Alupis wrote:
| Great points, but also consider for medium and small (and
| large) businesses, being able to provision and pay for only
| what they need _today_ is often cheaper than spec 'ing out
| beefy hardware to handle tomorrow's scaling issues.
|
| After all, most companies using the "cloud" still have on-
| staff IT anyway, since non-technical people still cannot
| manage AWS or any other cloud provider on their own.
|
| Cash flow is another thing - lay out big money for redundant
| on-site servers and supporting hardware today, or pay as you
| go and use the cloud. Even if the cloud is ultimately more
| expensive, it's easier for C-suite folks to plan for a small
| monthly expense vs. huge up front expenses and then dealing
| with failures and upgrades, etc.
| dilyevsky wrote:
| And then when you get large enough and hire dedicated
| "devops" team to manage your cloud and now you're back to
| "dealing with IT department" (rebranded) except now you also
| pay through the nose for network and storage and anything
| managed. Oopsies.
| dgudkov wrote:
| It really depends on what cloud services are used. The strategy
| of all the major cloud providers is to attract customers with
| cheap low lock-in commodity resources like S3 or EC2 and
| convince them to start using high lock-in and high-margin
| services like serverless computation. If they succeed (and they
| frequently do), the bills go through the roof.
|
| Read also: https://a16z.com/2021/05/27/cost-of-cloud-paradox-
| market-cap...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-17 23:01 UTC)