Thread 106967966

It sounds very complicated and expensive and you can just do it yourself

Why do so many companies pay for this?

>>106967966 (OP)
what does this guy do that it costs this much to run
thats more interesting

>>106967966 (OP)
>Why do so many companies pay for this?
because 90% of the time it's cheaper, SMB market is huge and that's where cloud shines.
>no colo costs
>instant DR spin up for cheap
>no internet bullshitter with a vendor
>no paying for remote hands
>no HW service contracts that can be upwards of 60k/yr for 2 devices

>>106967995
It's basically never cheaper, which is how it makes money in the first place. The sole innovation is to enable "ask for forgiveness, not permission" by allowing teams to bypass procurement cycles and avoid justifications for hardware spend. Thus you can get more system resources based on feels rather than collecting actual performance metrics, and you can kick the can way down the road in a large org so that by the time they realize you're spending 30k a month on a service that serves 4 requests per second at peak, you'll have already bounced to the next company and won't have to answer for why your code is hot dogshit.

>>106967966 (OP)
how can he post that for two years?
when is he actually exiting the cloud? his table still shows a million dollars spend on aws.

>>106967966 (OP)
Clouds exist because of the process of condensation, where water vapor in the atmosphere cools and turns into liquid water droplets or ice crystals. This happens when warm, moist air rises, expands, and cools, and these tiny droplets and crystals gather on microscopic particles called aerosols, such as dust and salt.

>>106968072
No it's often cheaper all the time if you aren't a moron or large enterprise which is what OP's image is.

The average Rack in a Colo is ~8k/month these days, for one of my customers that's HALF their Azure bill for ~40 servers, backups, and a client base of 35k.
>The sole innovation is to enable "ask for forgiveness, not permission"
Let me know how that goes when a C level comes in and asks you how to secure the businesses future for growth on the fly.
> Thus you can get more system resources based on feels rather than collecting actual performance metrics
Who cares if my solution in Azure, AWS, GCP is still 1/3rd the cost of you on prem or colo'd datacenter? Has more aggressive backups, growth it litterally click some buttons and done, DR is pennies compared to a cold site+tunnel+HW sitting, and I don't have to argue with 3 hardware vendors why a 3year 24x7x4 is 50k?
>you'll have already bounced to the next company and won't have to answer for why your code is hot dogshit.
Welcome to working in technology, marketing may want X product and as an employee you install X product. No they don't want a home coded solution they want X product. Great that's a server because they say so. Oh no that's growth... shit.

You're mindset is that of a small SMB company where you think yourself the wizard to solve problems, don't worry you can be, but 90% of the time it's just dealing with retarded shit the company asks and ensuring it's viable 5-6 years down the road without WHAT THE HELL DO WE NEED A 30k+hypervisor licensing SERVER FOR?!??!

>>106968121
>You're mindset is that of a small SMB company where you think yourself the wizard to solve problems
Sorry kid, just like your claims above, the opposite is true. At a large company you can afford to keep a team that enables you to run on hardware that, yes, ends up being orders of magnitude cheaper than running the same workload in the cloud. Speaking from personal experience doing that at various multinationals for the last quarter century, as well as jumping in on the cloud in the early days (circa 2009) to help spin up what is now a profitable cloud services consultancy.

>>106968121
why go for azure? it's a lot worse than aws and gcp.
mastodon.social/@azureshit

>>106967966 (OP)
Big corporations poison universities and bootcamps with courses for their services / software. People do these courses to get certificates and that then ends up being its own industry. Doing things bare metal or running your own server is considered weird.

>>106968306
false.
ms cannot afford running github on its own datacenter any longer. github's #1 priority is now to move to the cloud.

>>106967966 (OP)
It exists because someone in consulting made a really good sales pitch.

But also it can be cheaper once you reach specific sizes not directly in cost for cost, but in secondary costs. Because now you no longer need to pay for the engery, the room, the maintenance for maintaining a server room which also means fire prevention, data retention, a HALO system. Physical security for a server room, updating hardware ect ect ect. Its CAN pay off, but when and how is whats up for deabte.

Personally i fucking hate the cloud because i like holding my own hardware because a lot of service providers will push out bundle updates and hardware updates and you got no choice but to bite the pillow.

>>106968306
>At a large company you can afford to keep a team that enables you to run on hardware that, yes, ends up being orders of magnitude cheaper than running the same workload in the cloud.
Which is why I said Large Enterprise is the exception anon. Even then, a hybrid setup is what you'll most likely deal with. Did you completely glaze over the part where I said large enterprise? Again, if you're doing a ton of random R&D yeah buying a ton of cheap whitebox servers to churn code and projects is fine and probably less costly than a cloud setup especially if you want to dig into the HW.

Again, I migrate people to the cloud, most companies in the SMB space are heavily over provisioned and can get full power, internet, server/storage, redundancy for a fraction of a new build out on prem or colo. Most the time when you do a total cost of ownership of power/hvac/ISP/HW support/rack space/HW maintenance outages/etc it becomes in favor of the cloud for most SMB/Small Enterprise

>>106968311
AWS sure it's not as good
GCP? HHAHAHA no that platform is fucked gl on documentation that isn't constantly asking gemini and buying third party products for proper reporting.

Azure works for most clients because Admins are familiar with an AD setup that's free, most clients have things that run on windows with a few edge cases of linux installs, the licensing for Mail+end user devices is good, Citrix tie in is decent, Azure has made some really good progress on being a proper SSO Idp, etc. For your average sub ~300-800 user company O365 is a smoother transition in my exp than other solutions out there.

>>106968121
>The average Rack in a Colo is ~8k/month these days
i've looked into this before, the numbers weren't anywhere close to that. You either have very odd circumstances or are straight up bullshitting.

>>106968423
8K for a proper full 42u rack space? Yes that's what it is after power per month, HVAC fee's, Remote hands, etc.

Getting 1-2u + power isn't going to be anywhere close to that sure.

>>106967966 (OP)
Proxmox and other VM management software really sucked back then. Now you can buy a 128 core, 4ghz, 1TB monster for a few thousand bucks.

>>106968449
What the fuck? Where the hell did you get a quote for 8k? In my shithole a full rack like that is just 2k, 32 amps and 10g transit. 4k for 64 230V amps.

>>106968449
Hetzner is charging 200 for a full rack right now. Power is on top of that but I have trouble believing it adds up to 7800

I think it's because cloud environments offer solutions to problems you don't even have. The proof of that is the microservice madness.

>>106968072
We used to spin up new VMs all the time, use them for testing or whatever, and then never bothered to shut any of them down.
When asked to revisit them, we just blanket “mission critical, active” tagged all of them, including ones made be staff that left years ago.
“Might be something useful on there”

DESU a major + of cloud is having coast to coast disaster recovery. Really i cant see a value for cloud unless you are running some sort of 24/7 industry.
I work for gaming, and while i hate the cloud i cant deny its usefulness to run like 20 different fucking casinos with backup redundancy.

>>106968478
>>106968485
Most my clients are around Raleigh, 8k's been the average after local service fees such as 24/7 NOC remote hands, Power costs, PDU rental costs, HVAC costs, additional security, lock rentals, etc.
When you have 2 UCS fully loaded B-series chassis pulling 5kw regularly, a san taking up 30u, and so forth it gets expensive from what I have seen. Is that what it could be? Not everywhere. Is that what I do see? Absolutely.

>>106967983
37signals, they make Basecamp

>>106968306
the poster child of self-hosting recently moved to the cloud:
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/404231/we-re-finally-going-to-the-cloud
>However, the decision to move to the cloud was instigated by three unrelated events:
>Our data center in New York recently announced that it’s going to close. We would need to move all our hardware to a new location. Moving would be expensive, but most importantly, it would be an all-consuming project for 4-5 Site Reliability Engineers (SREs) for many months. That time could be better spent moving to the cloud.
>Additionally, our hardware is reaching its end-of-support date and would need to be refreshed. This would be very expensive. Should we spend that money on continuing our old direction or use this as an opportunity to explore something new?
>Lastly, maintaining our data centers was becoming a distraction. We estimate it would take 2-4 full-time people to properly maintain all our hardware. Sometimes hardware breaks, and this means our engineers have to physically go to the data center to fix things. Owning the hardware also means we have to do all the maintenance ourselves and sometimes upgrade the hardware when bits and pieces go out of support. This takes time and money from other things we want to do.

>>106968099
They deleted their AWS account publicly today. If you're stalking him that hard at least read his latest posts.

>>106968529
or maybe he should learn english and make succinct posts -- not add tables that contradict his text

>>106968562
seethe tranny

>>106967966 (OP)
Cloud used to be cheaper, and owning servers used to be very expensive.
My first job is the perfect example. I was the only sysadmin of a medium-sized insurance company. We had 2 internet links (dedicated 5Mb links) and it was crazy expensive.
We had 2 proper servers, but they were so dawm energy inefficient that we needed to upgrade the HVAC to 20 BTU just for the "server room".
One day the RAID board (which has a dedicated lithium battery to make sure nothing gets corrupted in case of a power down) caught fire and destroyed both servers. We had backups, but to get the hardware from DELL was something like 1 week and a half. So in desperation we decided to try the cloud. I brought a bunch of VMs (our servers used to run VMWare) and I spent an entire night there, with my personal laptop, uploading the dump to have it running the next morning.
Just the price alone from the dedicated internet links paid for the cloud (cloud used to be just VMs, though; I know that this nowadays is just a fraction of the cost) that we replace for a much cheaper and "faster" 20Mb link.

Nowadays you are better off with cheap and energy-efficient desktop hardware. You don't need expensive SAS discs when you can just get a bunch of SSDs and use RAID. The internet is cheaper and more reliable; you can get fibre EVERYWHERE.

>>106967966 (OP)
I don't know, buying and building a server room with a billion fans and 24/7 A/C and hundreds of hard drives and then doubling or tripling that for backups seems like it'd be a hassle and cost just as much.

>>106968121
I am paying $90/mo to rent a server right now. I just interact with it via IDRAC. Seems unlikely the guy I am renting it from is paying $8k/mo for the rack it is on. He lives really close to the DC though.

This is ATL. I have 1g, but it is +$200/mo for 10g.

>>106967966 (OP)
isn't it because of encrappification?
The cloud started out cheap to get the business customers on board because it was far cheaper than maintaining their own stuff, and then once everyone is on the cloud, you raise the price and keeping raising it, knowing that they are stuck with you.

>>106968725
>I am paying $90/mo to rent a server right now.
VM or Hardware like a 1u?

It's entirely possible you're renting a cheap place again, the customers I am dealing with pack on 24/7 NOC remote hands, dual PDU setup, running fully loaded blade chassis, NAS/SAN that take up 90% of the rack, have additional security compared to "yup we got a front desk there", inner connects between racks, full UPS in addition to the DC's redundant power, MPLS capable hookup, etc.

I don't think anyone questions you can't get some dude who essentially bought a bunch of supermicro 1u servers to lease out for 100/mo. When you start talking full 42u populated of equipment and support it gets pricey real quick. It's like a "dell server" starting at 499, but if you need it for a production environment to run things properly it scales up real fast.

>>106968745
cloud is worth the price and it's not even close. people who overspend on it likely are a big corpo which is difficult to oversee how engineers are using the cloud. the truth is the 200-300% markup on compute and bandwidth is there because you are paying for more than just the machine

>>106967966 (OP)
CEOs are a heard crowd.
Then don't choose what is best for the company but what they can gloat the most about.

>>106968500
So you are incompetent.

>>106968311
Azure destroys fort SMB though. Office + Teams+ Power BI doesn't even have a real competitor.

>>106968764
It seems like a classic case of "it's so expensive to do even basic stuff", but when you dig into it they have a ton of requirements that aren't really needed.

>>106967966 (OP)
You want to know why?
Because at work, my choice is: beautiful, just works, backups, point in time, growable database, that's properly set up with TLS, auth and can be mostly self-managed or
Wasting hours of my day with a "consultation" for a service that will require you to go through at least 2 more meetings to properly set up and then will get broken in the next change control anyway causing you to have an incident and an unplanned outage.

I don't have outages with the cloud, but I have outages with incompetent IT retards. I hate the cloud. I'd rather rackmount my own shit and run my own shit, but I can't because of Jewish daycare bullshit reasons.

The worst part? The incompetent IT retards are now trying to gatekeep the cloud now too so you can't just press button and receive a working system. Nope. Have a beautiful working IaC definition? Too bad, IT niggers cause it to fail because they intercept and break your shit anyway and force you to get special label exceptions and other bullshit. Can't have working database as a service either now. Nope that's a special "Managed" subscription that requires you to be "consulted." Be thankful if you can even fuck with the backup policy and storage space.

Every day I wish for a stray bullet to take my neck out like Charlie Kirk because I can't take it anymore. I am literally going insane.

>>106967966 (OP)
Offloading to a cloud is also offloading responsibility in case of a fuckup. If your tools rely on something like AWS anyway, your client won't get that "hey we can't do stuff on this data we have right now on site because Amazon servers are down and X works on Amazon," but you can explain "hey we can't work in your project now because it's in Amazon servers for data security, but they're experiencing a temporary outage " and link a news article or some shit

>go to the cloud
>set up 20 servers for 45/mo reserved for 3 years 2cpu/8GB to 4vcpu/16GB
>throw in a few IP's for like 4 bucks a pop
>now have all my app, print, sql, web services for <1000
>throw in some data for ~.08c per GB SSD storage
>backups geo redundant is ~12c/GB after network costs and such
>get SaaS VPN appliance for all sites and users ~200/mo
>5-10 bucks a month for essentially 10g burst(1gb avg)
>license every user in O365 for 6/mo for email storage, one drive, teams, and other shit like office through my VAR
>Month bill is ~6-7k depending
Now I have full flexibility for all users working remote, can move it when needed, fail it over as needed, HW always upgrades, and the cost is all itemized for accounting without having to tell them again why every 3 months YES internet costs us 1200/mo for our office...

>>106968764
It's a Dell server, like I said I interact with it via IDRAC. It's old, Haswell, but the point is even with a fully loaded rack no way it would be $8k/mo. It's a Dell R430 LFF w/ 4 bays.

He has barebones Ivy Bridge ones for even cheaper than that. Like $60-70/mo. No way rack space costs as much as you say.

Even with shite hardware he wouldn't be able to make even if it costs that much for a full rack.

>>106968647
It only cost us $100k in equipment for 2PB, when we looked at a cloud equivalent, it looked like we’d be paying multiples of that per year. Maybe it wasn’t the right decision, but I guess I’ll let /g/ know if I saved my company millions or if it was a waste.

>>106968860
>when you dig into it they have a ton of requirements that aren't really needed.
Remote hands is 100% needed if renting a rack, what happens if a your NAS drops a drive? Tell your boss you need to drive at 56c/mile there or fly out or something?
MPLS is needed for quite a few reason I shouldn't even have to begin to talk about
Dual PDU's, are you really going to risk your good paying job on the fact you skimped out and only went with 1 PSU in the server hooked to 1 PDU? Enjoy getting your ass ripped in any audit.

The difference is not only SMB vs Enterprise, but difference on how seriously you take your job and know what not to do to increase risk to the business's services and operational uptime. If you work in a small 15-50 person business being offline for a day or two might not be anything big. Working for a business where it's 400 people and an outage is costing the company ~55k every minute in lost revenue as seen from the CFO ? Big deal

>>106968918
>Even with shite hardware he wouldn't be able to make even if it costs that much for a full rack.
Again a ton of things go into play, I doubt you have 24/7 NOC monitoring+remote hands like most businesses have, have the increased power loads, full security, power guarantees on the Cisco B Series with your nexus backend, supporting your F5's to ensure clients login and webheads, and Pure Storage array that cost ~2.5m to purchase. If for some reason you can't get into that dell, it's most likely a small inconvenience not a someone is getting fired moment. Any all this needs to be secured in a building properly certified for hosting client data, SSN's, possible money purchases, etc; that your companies data insurance policy will support.

A rack without any kind of special setups can be found for stupid cheap, think old warehouse+AC units attached. There are a ton of variables that drive up price to a business running their entire mulit million-dollar company and "I got a dell server".

>>106968988
>A rack without any kind of special setups can be found for stupid cheap
To add onto this things that increase a rack cost:

Routing protocols supported on your internet provided to the rack
Uptime of the internet, 98% and 99.999% uptime is a big difference when dealing with a production environment
Guaranteed bandwidth to the circuit provided as many cheap hosts are "up to" x with bursting if they have the free throughput
Tunnel and connection for DR, are you using a random ISP backbone or the Colo's dark fiber?
Faraday yes (some businesses actually require additional shielding)
Total power and power type delivery to the rack
Power uptime guarantee and what the generator can provide
As stated, remote NOC support usually involving hands on tasks
Rack security, what's required to enter the DC, what is freely accessible without tools and what is protected by locks
HVAC certificates, ISO certificates, etc

So much more to it, when we were choosing a datacenter to move our stuff from our building to a hosted rackspace there was a ton of paperwork we had to review due to local laws and insurance wanting to know EVERYTHING that was changing and where.

>>106967966 (OP)
Cloud exists to make every computer on Earth a terminal to a globohomo mainframe.
Eventually Windows OS will be entirely cloud and there will be no local hardware storage. They will sell this as a feature.

>>106968920
what about rent?

>>106969169
It’s internal to the office, so it isn’t an added expense. They’d need to pay it one way or the other

>>106969195
They need to pay for all the UPS's, power, cooling, added insurance costs, risk of weather events(no man's sky moment), etc?

>>106968860
It probably is. After covid, there are a ton of "desktop" servers in the old buildings no one can touch. With how cheap hardware is and how compact it can be, I really don't think most shit matters as much as people say. Maybe worst case is some downtime but really, who fucking cares? Even the us-east-1 shit was a nothingburger. People have some insane overinflated view of things and it makes no sense. No you don't need 24/7 uptime unless the shit is literally life and death tier and it shouldn't be so critical there isn't a lower tech alternative in said situations. Take a fucking break.

>>106969199
It really doesn’t look like it’ll even come close… we estimated 25k/year for power and cooling, but the rack’s max draw is 3kw, but it hasn’t gone above 1kw during business hours so far. like I said, I’ll get back to y’all in a few years.

>>106969216
>Maybe worst case is some downtime but really, who fucking cares?
Because there is a huge difference between "my DarkRP gmod and mailserver is down! oh well" vs. we have 500 people who average 35/hr unable to work and customers who turn to a competitor or didn't impulse by right then because our website didn't load so sales are down. Projects being held up too!

I don't think this place understands uptime, most cloud providers hit 99.999% uptime a year which is why these few hours of outage are such a big deal. Most on prem solutions hit somewhere around 95-99%(assuming you are a good admin staying on top of HW Firmware patching and simply due to ISP outages/weather). A CFO will crunch the OpEx per hour and then tell the CTO/CEO the reason the cloud is good is because the downtime on prem pays for itself or near it by moving to the cloud.

>>106969240
What about the secondary offsite unit you replicate to? What's the network costs? How does your companies data insurance charge for it on prem? What's the outage risk per year during updates?

>>106969129
>Routing protocols
Are you going to need BGP? Lol.
>>106968988
Seems like you could just have a redundant rack in another DC instead of having as much shit as you're asking for. Also how in the fuck is a company needing a $2.5mil array when they're worried about $8k/mo in rack costs.

Sorry what you're saying does not compute. I could build a fucking multiple 1 petabyte arrays that will failover to each other for a tiny, tiny fraction of that.

>>106969274
More bullshit Jewish nonsense. Plenty of companies have downtime, like delta, and people are still flying delta. Clownstrike is still in business. M$ Azure was literally rootkitted so bad no one still fully knows how bad it was. It's all just bullshit. Customers don't get to even choose the software they want. Some fucking jeet who stands to make a kickback forcing their wage cucks to use something else, will make them use that, no matter what.

Also, I wouldn't even be surprised if some shitty gaymen desktop wouldn't heem the absolute fuck out of most these enterprisey shit ass rackmounts.
>b-but muh no ecc
probably the only real thing you can come back with at this point. Hell, that can be solved with some lockstep computing even. I'm just tired of the lies, the bullshit, the fake security that doesn't work. Tired of it. Tired of Bezos, tired of the silly con valley.

>>106969319
>Also how in the fuck is a company needing a $2.5mil array when they're worried about $8k/mo in rack costs. When moving all their servers up to the cloud cutting the bullshit their devs were doing down and consolidating their circuts and what not, then went from over 300k in OpEx for the rackspace, HW support costs, and ISP+router BS to around 200k/yr
I never said they were worried, I was pointing the ROI given them moving to the cloud.
> I could build a fucking multiple 1 petabyte arrays that will failover to each other for a tiny, tiny fraction of that.
Great now go sell a business on that where you are available 24/7 to ensure it goes over flawlessly, is always up to date, and all the HW is maintained constantly to do so.

I could easily go throw something cheap together with supermicro whiteboxes and buy a ton of spare drives between two sites and call it "good enough" but then I start adding up admin overhead, service fees, paying for HW replacements, outages caused by storms, etc; and you start to get a different answer. It's not your money at the end of the day, I'll spend more to ensure the business has a better uptime, more flexibility in growth if they acquire another company and need to ramp up 20% over the projected 5-8%/yr, and overall safety of the resources than "here is a 2M BOM" and get an angry call in 18 months where I get told it's not enough and they spent 2M on this? They don't care something was out of scope lol.

>>106969319
2.5m in server equipment isn't that much when you pile on licensing, SW services, warranty and support, and so on. You'd be surprised how cheap a router or two can look, then you need HSRP, VPN costs, traffic shaping, bot protection, and so on. Don't even get me started on non-SaaS AP management setups...

>>106969373
>>106969437
>worried about hiring domestic IT staff when there's literally a glut of them.
I would do this for very cheap assuming I had a low workload and was able to work mostly remotely. That is unless I had to upgrade or respond to hardware issues. I fucking hate working full time.

>Outages caused by storms
But muh AWS is good enough, and again, what was the point of having multiple redundant locations? It's a lot better than putting all your eggs in the AWS US-EAST-1 basket.

>VPN costs
Fucking please. Are corpos this fucking stupid? How can I take what you're saying seriously?

Yeah boss, adding VPN support to our network is going to cost us dearly!

I can believe Cisco might charge some outrageous fee for adding VPN support to some networking device, but why the fuck are you paying that when there are solutions that are basically free and work just as well?

I am surprised cloud providers care enough to run damage control on /g/ of all places.

Imagine actually having your IT staff actually do something themselves instead of relying on their vendors for everything. I guess it's always easier to just pass the buck onto someone else instead of taking responsibility for your own infrastructure though.

I guess corpos really have no clue how to take advantage of open source solutions that are literally fucking free, and instead rely on proprietary shit so unstable they have to also pay outlandish fees for support contracts.

I guess no one will ever learn anything from this AWS mess.

Then again I've been doing this kind of thing since the late 90s when I was literally 19 years old. I just can't fathom what has happened to IT at this point. I had no problem keeping five 9s even in the early 00s.

Um, sweaty, the open source VPNs don't have the mandatory spyware to make it ENTERPRISE quality and isn't some ancient whitelabeled SSL VPN.

I remember my first job the office VPN was to set up a reverse ssh shell and use that as a socks5 proxy into the network. Eventually globohomo forced some gay AnyConnect bullshit that required you run some stupid binary for some bullshit attestation reason and then do some RSA securid crap. Ironically it was somehow slower than TCP over TCP.

>>106969715
There's plenty of other solutions besides an SSH tunnel + SOCKS proxy though. Can't you just throw up some kind of Wireguard or OpenVPN solution?

I just did a little searching and there's already pre-canned docker containers ready to go, and if you don't trust them it's not hard to just roll your own.

These consultants just rape these companies with unnecessary requirements and are 100% full of shit and lazy as fuck.

>Just like outsource to the cloud, man! Don't want to have to pay thousands a year for your VPN!

And people actually pay for this.

>>106968988
>>106968764
>MPLS
You act like finding a DC with literally 5 different Tier 1 providers all willing to sell you cheap bandwidth with an SLA is an expensive thing these days.

>Additional security
Locked racks/chassis with intrusion detection and SED. Are some randos going to walk into the DC break into your rack and manage to get the keys for your SED devices?

Of course with software based whole disk encryption you could technically jack the RAM out quickly enough to read the keys before they fade from memory, but I can only imagine it is significantly tougher than that with self encrypting disks.

I literally run that shit on my own home setup.

https://github.com/Drive-Trust-Alliance/sedutil

It must be nice being a bullshit artist who is great at duping MBAs who have no clue about tech.

>Muh VPNs cost so much money!

>>106967966 (OP)
Jews

use cloud so you can blame someone else when things go wrong

>>106969564
>It's a lot better than putting all your eggs in the AWS US-EAST-1 basket.
So why not use US-Central or some other place to load balance over?
>>106970162
It's one example of a feature anon.
>I literally run that shit on my own home setup.
Cool now walk into an interview and tell them that's how you plan to secure their customer/clients data and run the company. To be a fly on the wall for that.

>>106970162
Are you trying to laugh at the situation or give more reason to move to the cloud. Because your post can be seen as reasons to move to the cloud as everything is software defined and takes less administrative overhead to even think about. Meaning less head count, more money saved, company and CEO's are happier.

>>106967966 (OP)
Cheaper on initial investment if you are a startup.
More expensive once you can afford your own datacenters / servers.

>>106970413
SED is a lot better than some magnetic keyfob that's for sure. It's a fucking fact.

You're probably right they won't like hearing that, but it is literally the truth.

Speaking of features, that VPN sure is expensive! If one goes down we could just run a backup docker container on every single server we have at every DC y'know.

Oh God man.... those SLAs for muh internets! Fuck getting them is so hard.

Who says AWS is keeping your data secure? How do you know someone working there isn't having a little fun. I mean considering they were having issues for literally 12+ hours the other day. No way that someone couldn't y'know backdoor some stuff and get unauthorized access to literally every single customer's data.

Surely AWS is so much more secure than a SED that's been third party audited that only you have the key and/or 30+ character long passphrase to.

>>106969324
>M$ Azure was literally rootkitted so bad no one still fully knows how bad it was.
I remember that one. Some guy found an exploit that gave him root on literally any customer. What's scary is that no-one cares.

>>106970458
Uhh.. Can you read? SED doesn't suffer the issue that software based solutions have. It's a hardware based solution.

You literally just proved your fucking ignorance. God is this really the level of competence of your average consultant these days?

I was literally comparing it to an inferior software based solution. Saying that software FDE is already hard enough to break, let alone a hardware based solution like SED.

Also, what >>106970483 said about security of the cloud.

You guys are literally a fucking joke, but hey you say what HR and the MBAs wanna hear. I bet you have no problem finding work despite being totally fucking clueless.

Thanks for proving my point.

>>106967983
looks like business management software

>>106970476
Holy NEET take batman.

>Who says AWS is keeping your data secure?
Because I can go download the documents and certificates stating how the data is handled and verified by a third party
>How do you know someone working there isn't having a little fun.
Because at that point it's not my problem and a companies data insurance plan will take over there.
>No way that someone couldn't y'know backdoor some stuff and get unauthorized access to literally every single customer's data.
Good thing I have vendors working on patches for me not having to hamstring some open source solution I sold my company to and if shit fucks up I am in the hot seat.
>Surely AWS is so much more secure than a SED that's been third party audited that only you have the key and/or 30+ character long passphrase to.
Yes, GCP Azure AWS etc all have multiple certificates for these things done my independent companies to check and test regularly that these standards are met.

This is literally the shit I have Jr. SysAdmins at their first real administrative job screech about only to ask them how they would implement it and they draw up some single point of failure being "well I know how to do it and this open source project can be used". Guess what, by the time we move them to some cloud provider or hybrid setup, they usually no longer work with the company. Great what happens if you take a day off or leave the company, shit's fucked. Moving to an industry standard means the company can always find someone to come in and help run their operations.

Not sure why you are hyperfocused on SED's anon, again when you go through an audit and get insurance on your business there are a lot of points to cover.

>>106968745
VMs make sense if you need <~1kw of compute in any region. Beyond that colocation starts to make more sense.

AWS pretty much never makes sense over eg Digital Ocean.

>>106967966 (OP)
table says they're spending 1 mil in aws though?

>>106967966 (OP)
yea it's so easy and cheap managing servers all across the world by yourself.

>>106970164
>Yanis Varoufakis
Left wing freak who wants his country filled to the brim with jeets and niggers

>>106969274
You can't just take your average earnings per hour and multiply your downtime with it and get the amount of money you lost. People who are already your customers will come back and use it when it's back up.

>>106967966 (OP)
it's cheaper to use AWS, you only pay what you use
if there are fewer people visiting your website, the costs would go down as well

>>106968121
>The average Rack in a Colo is ~8k/month these days
/g/ - neets larping so bad that with 0.2 seconds of searching even other neets can tell you're a nigger

>>106969792
A) this was like 7 years ago at this point and
B) ya I'd probably do headscale or something instead.

>>106970565
The funny thing is, both of you are right for totally different reasons. It's both horrifying and hilarious as well.

>>106970565
>Because I can go download the documents and certificates stating how the data is handled and verified by a third party

>>106967983
Also HEY, the email thing
>>106967966 (OP)
Cloud only costs big once you get big
If you’re starting out, it makes no sense to rent a real computer in a datacenter when you could get a VPS or just run it on Heroku

>>106967966 (OP)
>>106968099
>idiot make bad decision
>idiot reverse bad decision
>idiot wants to be praise for reversing his bad decision
many such cases

>>106970483
That one is funny, but I was talking about how the root signing key used to sign credential tokens and shit was stolen.

https://arstechnica.com/security/2023/09/hack-of-a-microsoft-corporate-account-led-to-azure-breach-by-chinese-hackers/

>>106967966 (OP)
nobody will blame you when AWS goes down or is crazy expensive but if your custom solution fails then you are fucked

>>106971731
I would blame you anon.

Itt people who don't understand the difference between OpEx and CapEx.

>>106971776
I think people ITT understand it. We also just understand it's all nonsense.

>>106971115
Ad hominem is not an argument.

>>106970521
I still don't know what it is or what it does. It seems like they're spending too much if all they're running is a todo list and a forum.

>>106971852
Ad hominem is several types of arguments.

>>106971776
It's all accountant excel mental masturbation. At the end of the day the company is paying both. Another fun accountant mental masturbation exercise which ends up just costing the company money is having different business areas play with imaginary money and order shit from each other. jfc if I have to mark up hours into 10 different projects ever again so that all the departmental budgets look nice ever again I'm gonna go fucking postal.

>>106967966 (OP)
Are we the only ones that knew from the start that cloud is bullshit? To me it was obvious, why they only notice now?

>>106967995
Say that again but in English

>>106967966 (OP)
>duude just buy your own servers
>duude just build your own HA infrastructure across multiple continents
>duude just hire a literal army of server jannies who will manage and updoot all this all the time

>>106969564
It’s alright with me with people switching to cloud. Because those cloud skills are usually non-transferable to working with REAL hardware. The more people who don’t know how to deal with real infra is less competition for me. Simple as.

>>106967966 (OP)
>Why do so many companies pay for this?
Simply put a combination of laziness and spending other people's money.

>>106967983
He tries to make real software with dynamic languages.

>>106967966 (OP)
Well if your service is on only one server it can have catastrophic outages so theoretically cloud makes that impossible -- however, at this point my dedicated server has had only 1 outage in 5 years due to a networking backbone problem while AWS has had at least 5 major outages which can only be described as pure incompetence.

>>106972297
>implying anyone outside of very few select companies needs any of this
Most companies don't even have a testing ground or even redundant servers or even something as simple as fucking backups and this does not only apply to le mom and pop shitstores. You'll find this shit at almost every major company.
Even the people that do use AWS don't even use a fraction of what it really can offer because basically no one on earth fucking needs that.
Most companies not in the cloud have one or two machines at most acting as an AD controller and maybe a DNS server and network share. Most companies that did migrate to the cloud do the same shit just now with VMs on someone else's machine instead of their own.
A sizeable chunk of homelab fags has a better setup in terms of redundancy and backups than somewhere between 40-70% of all companies going off of my experience with SMB and global players.
What you are talking about is complete fantasy. And even small companies don't build their own servers, they go to some faggot middle man that recommends a system and upsells them on 24/7 4 hour response times for a bakery in New Jersey.

>>106967966 (OP)
We live in fake economy.

Scalability is the only thing cloud really has going for it, but that's no small thing. The difference between

>we've got a surge in demand
>Cool, give me $200,000, I'll get on to Cisco and we'll have new hardware in maybe a week
vs.
>we've got a surge in demand
>OK. I'll make this adjustment in the AWS dashboard and it's done.

is not negligible or unimportant.

>>106967966 (OP)
Same reason why everyone with a house doesnt have a solar panel on their roof generating free energy.

Upfront cost.

Everyone knows there's upfront cost, but what they dont want to or cant seem to get past is to simply take out a loan on the payment and make it a monthly payment. This makes the montly payment of ownership of solar cost the same or less than monthly electrical cost from utility power station.

>>106967966 (OP)
>>106968072

Cloud made a lot more sense in the CPU Dark Ages where AMD was a nonfactor and buying more Intel cores was brutally expensive. Stitching a bunch of cheap rented disposable VMs together really could save you buckets of money. The whole reason Amazon invented those tools internally was to save themselves money relative to buying enormous servers and "minicomputers" from proprietary unix vendors with a swarm of x86 Linux servers, and then they had excess capacity to sell externally.

Now of course it's actually super easy to run your stuff at home on manycore machines with NVMe drives, and DHH is basically doing the business version of that.

>>106967983
it was the price to shill omarchy on /g/ for a month

>>106973235
kek

>>106973163
Almost no one goes from 1000 users to 1,000,000 users overnight. Most businesses in fact grow predictably year over year. And if your business is exploding, customers don't give a fuck if your site crashes or is slow and there's numerous case studies proving it. People will wait out the door in a blizzard if your business is popular but some nerds are paying 100% tax on cloud scalability.

>>106973289
>just make sensible business plans and tack scaling and growth accurately!
that's not how startups work and you know it
every service that can possibly be offloaded to someone else you can just pay is how it works

>>106968072
Ive seen this exact scenario play out repeatedly

>>106967983
>>106967966 (OP)
>>106967995
It was cheap. It's starting to become expensive. The rugpull will come in a year or so, and we'll have to pivot. Job security.

>>106967966 (OP)
its cheaper to set up
and then you dont fiddle with something that works
it becomes running costs that scale with your business
its less risky than investing god knows how much into hardware youre not yet sure you will actually leverage in your dealings

>>106967966 (OP)
Profit and loss. The reason market works is that companies that do retarded shit fail.
After 2009(thanks Obama) companies began to receive money freshly printed from the government, so now they could afford retarded things like infinite women and cloud services and never fail.
That's all there is to it.
I hate the managerial class and central banks.

>>106967966 (OP)
It's funny. Anyone who knows about the hows and whys of vendor lock in saw this coming. And yet, so many companies still fell for it.

LMAOing my ass off at those companies who downsized their IT departments because "the cloud makes it easier!".

>>106973398
yeah most startups act like they're going to win the lottery and put it all on Black 27. You know what anon, don't bet the farm on your business needing to scale because 99% of the time you're bankrupt before the first 100 customers.

maybe the person who needs to get aclue is you

>>106973566
>>106973398
Also, if you spend even half a day choosing the language to develop whatever shitty startup service you're doing and choose something that fits the purpose and isn't known for having shit performance you can run huge amounts of users on very modest hardware. And even if you just put it into the cloud and waste VC money on scaling the shit out of badly performing code you'll run into problems really fast if you do hit the winning lottery ticket.

>>106973566
>>yeah most startups act like they're going to win the lottery and put it all on Black 27
Of course how else you think we got our VC funding to begin with?
I have DAU to pump up I can't waste it buying servers and other boring crap