On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 12:43 Ken Schaefer <k...@adopenstatic.com> wrote:
> I haven’t seen the latest list, but my current (and previous two) employer > was on the list a couple of years ago. And whilst we can probably get > hardware pretty cheap, that’s not the bulk of the cost of running something > on-premise. Talking about hardware costs is talking about the wrong thing. > I’m not saying that cloud is cheaper (it probably isn’t), but it gives you > agility and flexibility, and time-is-money. > Correct; and I have come to be 180 degree opposed to where I was on cloud 5-6 years ago. It is very easy for the anti-cloud people to point to a piece of tin and say 'that hardware was $400K and it lasts us 3-4 years'. It is much harder to point to all of the operational staff costs, downtime from hardware not being run properly, full suites of ops software that are just built into cloud solutions. I could stand you up a global data centre in Azure with BGP routing and all the active fail over DR you want in a couple of hours. Try doing that with tin and wan service providers. The article says: *"First and foremost, Fortune 500-size corporations that can’t negotiate pricing for servers and storage comparable to what Amazon and Microsoft pay for the gear they use to run AWS and Azure just aren’t trying very hard. They have access to the same technology management tools, practices, and talent, too."* Which is just bullshit for IaaS and REALLY bullshit for PaaS solutions like Azure SQL Database. -- David Connors da...@connors.com | @davidconnors | https://t.me/davidconnors | LinkedIn | +61 417 189 363
