Businesses Moving From Amazon's Cloud To Build Their Own

Nor surprising and won't matter. by serviscope_minor · 2013-04-18 00:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

It doesn't surprise me and I don't think it will matter much.

Amazon is not particularly cheap. If you host your own, even with power, cooling and hardware, the payback time is about 4 to 6 months.

If you have a lot of load then it is going to be cheaper to host it yourself, so it's worth doing for big companies.

With Amazon of course you can start as a one man band and still have potential to grow without it getting painful from an administrative point of view.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by CastrTroy · 2013-04-18 00:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

The only case where it really made sense was when you had extremely variable load. It's nice for scientists that need to rent 100 computers for use with one project, but if you're going to be using the same resources on a day-to-day basis, then it makes much more financial sense to just own your own hardware, and rent space in an existing data center. It also makes sense if you use less than a whole server in resources, but VPS was already filling that need quite well before Amazon came along.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by Dancindan84 · 2013-04-18 00:27 · Score: 1

Exactly. This is no different than anything else. Companies reach a certain point and hosted X becomes less viable than doing their own solution depending on the pricing model and service level provided. Email, website, call center, payment processing...

--
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by Albanach · 2013-04-18 00:28 · Score: 1

Does your payback time include any costs for hardware administration/maintenance?
It costs money through time in sourcing and installing hardware. It costs you to keep spare equipment that can take over in the event of hardware failure. These all need factored in. It's common when buying a box to overspec, anticipating future growth, whereas on a service like Amazon you can click and upgrade your hardware capacity when you need it.
I think there are also fewer well managed co-location sites that have good connectivity and who are interested in customers needing only a few U of space.
I'm not saying that there aren't advantages to hosting yourself but in my experience there are lots of costs saved by using cloud based servers that often get overlooked from the accounting equations.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by serviscope_minor · 2013-04-18 00:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

The only case where it really made sense was when you had extremely variable load.
Indeed, or if you're expecting to scale. The thing is, as you scale up, you can always move the baseload to dedicated servers and just do the variable part on Amazon.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by thereitis · 2013-04-18 00:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you're just using Amazon for compute power then perhaps, but then you've got no geographic redundancy with that single data center. Whether it's worth rolling your own solution really depends on your needs (lead time, uptime requirements, budget, IT skill/availability, etc).
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by CastrTroy · 2013-04-18 00:54 · Score: 2

I guess it really depends on what business you are in though. Take for instance a large company like Ford (picked because they aren't a computer/technology/web based, but large company). Their expertise has nothing to do with computers. Now, the question becomes, would it be cheaper for an organization of this size to host their own email? Most likely it would. But the real question is, do they want to devote any corporate time to even dealing with this kind of thing. Basically they would have to have a whole new division added on to their company to handle IT management, and they'd have all the fun stuff that goes along with it. It makes much more sense for someone like Amazon to host their own email because they already have a bunch of people managing servers anyway, so adding a few more servers isn't getting into uncharted territory. I mean, Ford probably uses enough keyboards that it might make sense to have their own keyboard factory. But that doesn't mean its a good business decision or that it's something they want their company to be doing.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 00:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

we use Azure for a lot of things in my particular department because it helps us bypass our IT department. Sometimes we need to set stuff up really fast and only have it last for a short amount of time. It takes our IT department about a week to open ports on our firewall or map a machine to an IP....when we have 2 days to get something working this doesn't work. As far as cost goes...it isn't all that much more expensive than handling the hardware ourselves. I can also, on the fly, scale things up as I need to. It's a lot easier than buying ram...shutting down the server...getting someone to put the RAM in since I don't have access to NOC. Works perfectly for our needs. I can also run a ton of test web sites for free with Azure and then move them to production as I need to. If they stay under a certain barrier then I don't get charged for them at all since the first like 5 gig of traffic is free once I move it to a dedicated resource. Trying to do this traditionally wouldn't work for us at all...and would make things even worse.
Your mileage may vary.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by Dancindan84 · 2013-04-18 01:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

The thing is, when a company reaches a certain size they likely have a enough computer infrastructure to have an IT department anyway, even if they aren't an IT company. With your example of Ford, they have offices for managers, sales etc. All of those people likely have desktop computers, so they likely have dedicated desktop support. Additionally they probably have some kind of centralized authentication like active directory, which means they'll need a server and some sort of sys admin/IT infrastructure already. They likely wouldn't be adding an IT division in order to host their own email, they'd be adding an email server/management to the load of the existing IT department, which is obviously not as big an upfront overhead cost, making it more attractive.

--
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by serviscope_minor · 2013-04-18 01:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Take for instance a large company like Ford (picked because they aren't a computer/technology/web based, but large company). Their expertise has nothing to do with computers.
Are you sure about that?
A large company must have many many areas of expertise. Obviously their goal is to make cars. But have expertise in cars, large scale manugacturing, logistics, marketing, engineering, anything required to support engineering including simulation running on supercomputers, human resources and probably a whole bunch I haven't thought of.
The point is that many of them will involve computers to a large degree, so although a company like Ford makes no money with computers per-se every area of their operation will involve computer systems. As a result they will have a huge amount of computer expertise.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by Jawnn · 2013-04-18 01:17 · Score: 2

It If you host your own, even with power, cooling and hardware, the payback time is about 4 to 6 months.
That depends a great deal on the scale and availability demands placed upon your infrastructure. One can deploy a "private cloud" on one or two cast-off PC's, but that will be little more than a toy. If you want to support a serious deployment (dozens or hundreds of nodes) with anything approaching usable performance, you're going to be investing in some serious network and shared storage hardware, not to mention host servers. Want HA? Still more (bigger) bucks. Still, it doesn't take much to make those investments pay. I just think that 4-6 months is a bit too optimistic in all but the most trivial installations. YMMV, of course, but 12-36 months is more like it.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by alen · 2013-04-18 01:23 · Score: 2

neither does amazon unless you pay them a lot more $$$
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by drinkypoo · 2013-04-18 01:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

The defining factor is whether you can keep more than one IT guy busy full time. If you can, then you hire at least two, one senior and one junior to at least fight fires when he's sick. If you're keeping at least two IT buys busy full time, you're going to be paying for them whether they work for you or not, but if they do work for you then you can fire them, so you have some control over what they do. If they'll just be placed with someone else if you don't like them, they're not going to work as hard for you. You need as much control as you can get over your own IT department. It's daft to contract out anything so critical when you're only adding to the likelihood of leaks and malfeasance.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 01:40 · Score: 0

I guess it really depends on what business you are in though. Take for instance a large company like Fordxxxxx GM (picked because they aren't a computer/technology/web based, but large company). Their expertise has nothing to do with computers. Now, the question becomes, would it be cheaper for an organization of this size to host their own email? Most likely it would. But the real question is, do they want to devote any corporate time to even dealing with this kind of thing. Basically they would have to have a whole new division added on to their company to handle IT management, and they'd have all the fun stuff that goes along with it.
http://www.informationweek.com/global-cio/interviews/general-motors-will-slash-outsourcing-in/240002892
Sorry, I just couldn't resist!
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by afidel · 2013-04-18 02:05 · Score: 1

Right now AWS compute costs about 2-3X as much as an in-house VM for me given a 5 year lifetime (we buy storage with 5 years support and hosts last 4-5 years with upgrades), it's when you need anything that needs serious storage performance that the ROI time starts to decrease sharply. Where AWS rocks is peak shaving, if you have a workload that only needs a few hours a day of powered on time then it's really easy to justify it, but for your run of the mill corporate IT systems that just kind of chug along and need to be available whenever it's definitely more expensive. The other one I can see is if you want geographic distribution and can't easily use a CDN.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-04-18 02:08 · Score: 2

It's often the case that you'll just need one, plus a support contract. The support contract will handle any issues that the IT guy might not be able to do on their own, such as speedy hardware replacement.
Flexpod is pretty neat in that regard; it has automatic monitoring that will notify the vendor in the event of a perceived imminent hardware failure. They'll begin the process of sending a technician out with the replacement part in hand often times before the admin is even aware that anything is wrong. Doesn't cost anything when it happens, and because of the HA features you have zero downtime while the hardware is being replaced.
Flexpod (or its competitor Vblock) aint cheap, but you do get what you pay for if you want an in-house HA cloud service.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by ebno-10db · 2013-04-18 02:18 · Score: 2

Additionally there is the matter of control. You have a lot more of it if you do your own stuff. However, business often mindlessly follows the latest fashions (this explains why the execs get the big bucks - like fashion groupies). For years the trend has been to move everything out-of-house and buy "services". There recently seems to be some trend away from this, because it turns out the people who warned of the problems were often right (what a surprise). It doesn't help that many companies that offer "services" have become little more than overpriced front companies. For example, much of IBM's US operations have become little more than an overpriced front and unnecessary for India Business Machines.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 02:54 · Score: 0

Unless you expect to scale around Black Friday and the Christmas shopping seasons. Then you might get screwed when Amazon uses their cloud for their own variable load.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by 7213 · 2013-04-18 02:54 · Score: 3, Informative

Regarding Ford specifically.
You'd be surprised at the scale of their IT organization (as someone who once worked in Ford's datacenter).
They already have their own 'internal cloud' and have for some time (before 'cloud' was a 'thing'). The only thing different here is internal provisioning processes vs. Amazons credit card & go plan.
The cost of Amazon doesn't make sense, when you already have a pair of tier 1 datacenters and an IT organization more then capable of maintaining it.
Ford already HAS servers that won't be 'clouded' any time soon, so they have every bit as much justification to keep on doing things internally as Amazon would. And doing things for themselves gives them more control & likely better costs.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by nine-times · 2013-04-18 03:19 · Score: 1

But the real question is, do they want to devote any corporate time to even dealing with this kind of thing. Basically they would have to have a whole new division added on to their company to handle IT management, and they'd have all the fun stuff that goes along with it.
Obviously you've never done this kind of thing before. Ford needs IT management no matter what. Even if they use Amazon for hosting and Gmail for email and whatever else, that decision first implies that you have someone who understands the benefits and drawbacks to hosting your own services vs. going with a hosted service. People who don't understand it think that the benefits/drawbacks are obvious, but that's only because they don't understand it.
Once you've made a decision, you need to choose a vendor. You need someone on your staff to manage the setup process to make sure the solution is meeting business needs. You'll need someone overseeing the vendor for as long as you use them, and you need someone investigating new solutions to know when a superior service is being offered by someone else. Then you need people to help roll out the solution to users, provide training and documentation, and provide desktop support.
A company that size needs dedicated IT resources and management no matter what. Some MBA might think, "Oh, you just outsource it," but unless you have a knowledgeable staff managing the outsourced services, it'll be a disaster. Especially so with something like AWS, where Amazon isn't really providing a deep level of support. AWS isn't exactly a point-and-click solution for the masses.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by hawguy · 2013-04-18 03:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

neither does amazon unless you pay them a lot more $$$
Depending on your needs, setting up geographical redundancy with Amazon can be extremely cheap -- if you just want a cold or warm site to fail over to, you don't need to keep your entire infrastructure running at the secondary site, just replicate the data, and then spin up the servers over there when you need to fail over.
That's what my company does - we have about a dozen servers to run our website, but the secondary site has only a couple micro instances to receive data. When we need to failover, we just tell one of those servers to wake up the rest of the infrastructure and update the databases from the snapshots that have already been transferred over, including repointing DNS to the backup site. We could make the failover fully automatic, but are afraid of "split brain syndrome" leading to the failover site taking over when the primary is still fine so it's still a manual process. Our backup site is never more than 15 minutes out of date from production.
This has worked well in testing - we've done some "live" late-night failovers and it's relatively seamless -- since it's so cheap to set up the backup site (essentially we just pay for the cost of storage at the backup site), we're going to set up another region overseas for extra redundancy.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 03:51 · Score: 0

Depending on your needs, setting up geographical redundancy with Amazon can be extremely cheap
And history has shown that you pay for what you get.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by hawguy · 2013-04-18 04:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

Depending on your needs, setting up geographical redundancy with Amazon can be extremely cheap
And history has shown that you pay for what you get.
Right, if you cheap out and pay for a single availability zone in a single region, when that AZ or Region goes down, your site is down.
If you pay for multi-AZ and Multi-region deployments you get much better availability.
Just like Amazon says.
Over the past 2 years, Amazon has been more reliable than the coloc we moved away from, mostly due to the triple (!) disk failure that took out our SAN RAID array - one disk failed, and while we were waiting for the replacement, another disk went down, after we replaced those two, another disk went down while rebuilding the RAID-6 array.
With AWS, an entire region can go offline and we can bring up the backup site on the other side of the country (or, starting next month, we could bring up our Ireland region).
All this for less than half the cost we were paying for the coloc + equipment maintenance.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by Demonantis · 2013-04-18 04:37 · Score: 2

Your example is so true though. I have seen several professors use the service to complete a simulation over the weekend when they are on a deadline. Its a tool. You use it when it makes sense. The migration away is from inept companies that didn't do a real business case for the procurement, but have woken up now to the real cost.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by Patch86 · 2013-04-18 05:57 · Score: 1

It is the typical "outsourcing cycle". The executives who could show on paper that it would be cheaper to move all hosting to a third party cloud provider have now all moved on from their posts of a couple of years ago, and a bunch of new executives can now show on paper that it will be cheaper to host it in-house.
I've always held the view that outsourcing never makes sense on a large scale- if you're a big company with a lot of hosting needs, it's probably cheaper to hire a team of full time employees and purchase the hardware yourself- after all, Amazon doesn't have a magic machine which makes salaries or hardware cheaper than they are for everyone else. If you a small shop, where your requirements would be for a tiny team and underused hardware, that's when it makes sense to pay the experts to do it for you.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by thetoadwarrior · 2013-04-18 06:49 · Score: 1

With the outages in their east centre it has shown a lot of people on Amazon don't have redundancy either.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by Vrtigo1 · 2013-04-18 07:22 · Score: 1

If you're talking about virtualizing, then yes it's less expensive to purchase your own equipment and run your own VMs on it than it is to pay for instances in EC2. If you're just talking about purchasing a physical server to run a single application, then it's cheaper to rent from AWS than it is to purchase.

Even for companies that have relatively static compute needs, one area where AWS still really shines is storage. Take Glacier for instance...unlimited storage for a cent per GB per month. $120 a year to store a terabyte of data is pretty darn cheap. Sure you could buy some cheap SATA hard drives, but then you have the overhead of replacing them when they fail, powering them, keeping them cool, etc.

Another area where AWS is really handy is if you're doing a migration or upgrade and you temporarily want to spin up a complete replica of your production environment for test purposes. You can do that in AWS very easily and all you're paying for is the compute resources you're using. Most shops would find that very difficult if not impossible to do on their own hardware in their own datacenter.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by radarskiy · 2013-04-18 08:39 · Score: 1

"The point is that many of them will involve computers to a large degree, so although a company like Ford makes no money with computers per-se every area of their operation will involve computer systems. As a result they will have a huge amount of computer expertise."
They will consume a huge amount of computing. That does not equal expertise.
For example, you can consume a huge amount of beer. That does not grant you any expertise in brewing. That doesn't even mean you can pick good beers to drink.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 15:27 · Score: 0

Right, if you cheap out and pay for a single availability zone in a single region, when that AZ or Region goes down, your site is down.
Actually, my point was that history has shown that the AZs are bullshit. Amazon has had massive outages that spanned multiple AZs, and they failed to acknowledge it and you had to read their forums to find out about it from other customers while support would tell you to fuck off.
Not to say cloud hosting isn't good. Amazon is just fucking terrible.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. by jp10558 · 2013-04-19 03:11 · Score: 1

This is why RAID is not Backup, also, why if I had such a SAN, I'd either have redundant SAN nodes, a hot spare disk, or at least a spare cold disk to swap in on site.

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3

The obvious next step... by lxs · 2013-04-18 00:14 · Score: 5, Funny

...will be to give every user their own personal cloud housed in a box under their desk.
At which point the cycle will begin again.

Re:The obvious next step... by benf_2004 · 2013-04-18 00:20 · Score: 5, Funny

...will be to give every user their own personal cloud housed in a box under their desk. At which point the cycle will begin again.
That sounds like a great idea! We can call it a Personal Cloud, or PC for short.
Re:The obvious next step... by Richard_at_work · 2013-04-18 00:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why is there *always* a snarky comment along these lines whenever someone talks about not using a "public" cloud provider - cloud when talked about in these ways does not mean "someone else owns the hardware", it means "an infrastructure setup which means I do not have to care about the infrastructure when deploying applications", whether that be owned by someone else or an internally provided solution.
The old manner of inhouse application infrastructure involved one or more application server, one or more database server, and the related network and service architecture specifically required to handle redundancy and failover - but the point is, you had to care about that service architecture when dealing with your app! Which server had spare resource to act as a failover for another application (which invariably meant you ended up with two servers allocated for the job anyway, the main and a dedicated backup or two servers which took requests on a round robin manner), which server was not to be used for these purposes, which applications do not live together etc etc.
Today, the goal is to have a "large number of essentially commodity hardware servers" acting on a level which you can forget about for most solutions (there are always going to be situations where heavily tailored hardware solutions will still exist) - where you can treat the hardware as what it should be, a resource to be used and allocated as required.
Virtualisation was the first step (in modern terms, not talking about mainframes here), and cloud takes the aspect of virtualisation several steps down the road.
This has got sod all to do with the "cycle", and everything to do with "computing as a resource".
Re:The obvious next step... by roman_mir · 2013-04-18 00:41 · Score: 1, Funny

Yo Dawg, I heard you like a PC, so I put a PC in your PC so you can PC while you PC.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:The obvious next step... by nojayuk · 2013-04-18 00:49 · Score: 1

Followed shortly thereafter by "thin clients"...
Re:The obvious next step... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 00:54 · Score: 0

Funny but in a way we see this happening already with sandboxes and virtual machines. I can see the day coming when every app will run in its own wholly virtualized environment, bye bye to endless patching and antivirus and all the other crud.
Re:The obvious next step... by CastrTroy · 2013-04-18 01:14 · Score: 2

With the specs of some of the desktops coming out, they almost are a personal cloud. For about $2000, you can get a machine with 64 GB of RAM, 6 cores (12 if you count hyperthreading), dual SSDs for some speed with redundancy, + 2x1 TB hard drive for large capacity storage, and a pretty decent video card. I remember when $2000 would buy a modest computer, and I'm not even that old.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:The obvious next step... by egcagrac0 · 2013-04-18 01:17 · Score: 1

Laugh as you will, but spinning up a VM on each desktop that can contribute to the central processing pool has intrigued me for some time.
Security is a bit of a hangup, and it would have to be cleverly configured to only use the extra cycles... but for some applications, where you just need "a little more oomph", I think it's got merit.
Re:The obvious next step... by rednip · 2013-04-18 01:18 · Score: 0

After spending some time now as a corporate drone, I've come to believe that all 'major' plans are variations of either 'consolidation' or 'diversification', and that all big shifts in corporate power come from presenting the opposite of the last budgeted plan to senior management. However, it's important that the presenter get himself promoted to a new unrelated position before the halfway point of the project.

--
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Re:The obvious next step... by lxs · 2013-04-18 01:21 · Score: 2

I think somebody needs a hug.
Re:The obvious next step... by drinkypoo · 2013-04-18 01:32 · Score: 2

If you drop the 64GB of RAM to 16GB you can get all that for about $800. That's still loads of headroom.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:The obvious next step... by SimplyGeek · 2013-04-18 02:46 · Score: 1

I agree. It's about increasing the layers of abstraction.
Re:The obvious next step... by ebno-10db · 2013-04-18 03:16 · Score: 1

cloud when talked about in these ways does not mean "someone else owns the hardware", it means ...
Congratulations, you've passed the Rorschach test!
Inkblots are so messy though. Clouds are pretty and fluffy. You can see anything you want in them. They're perfect for marketing. I detest that old-fashioned anal retentive precise language that used to be popular in technology. This new through-the-looking-glass stuff leads to so much more fun debate.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
Re:The obvious next step... by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-04-18 04:01 · Score: 2

The thing is that the term "cloud computing" derived from the way that network architectures were drawn out for visualization purposes. You drew out a diagram that consisted of boxes of different descriptions representing devices on your company's network and how they connected to one another. Then you had a line that went out to the Internet, which was represented by a cloud because you had no idea what devices your communication passed through and you did not care. I have never really liked that metaphor for putting virtualized computer services on someone else's hardware, but I understand it. If I am hosting virtual machines on your hardware, I don't care how they communicate because if I run into a problem at that level it is your responsibility to fix it. On the other hand, if I am running virtual machines on my hardware and I run into a communication problem because of a hardware level problem I need to know how the various virtual machines connect to each other as well as how the actual hardware connects together if I am going to successfully troubleshoot the problem. That means, if it is running on my hardware it is not running on some vague "cloud" but on specific hardware which is connected in a specific manner. What makes the cloud metaphor useful is that nobody in my organization knows how those machines connect and we don't really care.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:The obvious next step... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 04:15 · Score: 1

The issue isn't the hardware, the problem is getting a decent internet connection to make your cloud available. If they start releasing apple/windows operating systems with DNS supporting software, default domain name registration and push the 'always on/always connected' everyone could have their own personal cloud, accessible from anywhere.
Re:The obvious next step... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 04:46 · Score: 0

...will be to give every user their own personal cloud housed in a box under their desk.
At which point the cycle will begin again. ...and heard when one user is temporarily sitting at another's desk:
Hey! You! Get of of my cloud!

WebDesktop/Cloud free stuff that works?? by RobertLTux · 2013-04-18 00:24 · Score: 1

So what is around for a SoHo type outfit that wants to do the Self Hosted Cloud thing but can't waste money? EyeOs would work if it
1 was a still being developed project
2 hadn't gone Closed Source

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge

Re:Slashdot fraud and abuse... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 00:25 · Score: 0

It's one of those awesome new fangled /. trolling bots

business forecast: cloudy by OffTheLip · 2013-04-18 00:29 · Score: 4, Funny

Businesses don't want to miss the next big thing but like most decisions, time will tell. "I've looked at clouds from both sides now, From up and down, and still somehow It's cloud illusions i recall. I really don't know clouds at all"

Re:business forecast: cloudy by dkleinsc · 2013-04-18 00:40 · Score: 4, Funny

On the upside, it makes it now possible for a business to say "Hey (hey), you (you), get offa my cloud!"

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:business forecast: cloudy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 02:16 · Score: 0

Most people don't know that this song is originally a warning from Scottish sheep ranchers. It is supposed to be Hey McCloud, get off of my ewe.

Maybe not completely by Gripp · 2013-04-18 00:35 · Score: 3, Informative

I work at one such company. We recently setup openstack and plan to eventually use it for our production environment. But ec2 will still stay in the picture. Both for services were the end user needs more direct access to the machine and for failover purposes. I just don't know that openstack means the end of ec2.

For one thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 00:40 · Score: 0

We need to get away from the term "cloud" -- it's a misnomer. Nothing has changed since the advent of client/server architecture. More data gets crunched on the server side, more data get stored on the server side, etc. I severely dislike marketing terms used solely for money making. THis is the same crap in the hunting industry, whereby everything is now labeled as "tactical".

Companies (non-IT) and even some IT companies don't really understand how things work. They fail to realize that storage has to be redundant first, feature high availability (immediate fail over), have reasonable amounts of security processes in place to cover the threat of loss, and off-site backups that are not available through the same channels as the primary source of data. Companies do not do this well. Even "cloud" companies. I so miss the days of simple client/server. Yes, yes, I know... it wasn't really better.

Complexity is the enemy of security. Now data is funneled through clients, mobile clients, apps that really should know nothing of your data, people that should know nothing of your data, badly implemented VPNs, VPSs, bad firewall rulesets, routers with no ACLS, no blacklists, improper use of PKI and storage of private keys, etc.

One solution, if you can afford the cost, is to colocate servers that YOU own and control, in two or more DIFFERENT colocation facilities and set those servers up for HA. Hire talented admins who understand security is a process, not a product, who understand routing, BGP/ISIS/OSPF/CARP/SSH, etc. Guys who can write good Perl/Python scripts, guys who truly care about what they do. Pay them well. Hire Americans.

I can see colocation facilities becoming popular again. I know I'm leaning this direction.

Re:For one thing... by slim · 2013-04-18 01:28 · Score: 1

We need to get away from the term "cloud" -- it's a misnomer.
No, it's just frequently misused.
One remote server, is not a cloud. Two load-balanced remote servers is not a cloud.
Dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of remote servers, configured such that data is stored redundantly and the software routes around a failed node; controlled by infrastructure such that adding or removing nodes is negligible effort -- that's a cloud.
Of course the marketers misuse it, because they want their non-cloud product to bask in the halo effect of the buzzword.
Re:For one thing... by tubs · 2013-04-18 02:25 · Score: 1

Sounds like Web 2.0 to me. Or was that just a marketing term too ... anyway according to Nist the essential characteristics of "cloud computing" are : On-demand self services, Broad network access, resource pooling, rapid elasticity and measured service. No mention of redundancy or routes.

--
try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die

Computing is going back to its roots by DoomSprinkles · 2013-04-18 00:41 · Score: 1

Thanks to initiatives such as OpenStack and Hadoop and MapReduce (etc) and the countless contributors who commit to the many projects that allow companies (and individuals with commodity hardware in their garage!) to do these amazing things for cheap, this is all possible and should be the trend! The ROI is well within acceptable margins and well.. it's just fun for us computer geeks! Computing really is moving back to it's roots and we're getting to play with amazing software projects.

Tightening reins on developers? by cryfreedomlove · 2013-04-18 00:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

From this article: "like tightening the reins on developers who turned to the cloud without permission"

Let me state this in other words: "Insecure IT guys are afraid for their own jobs if they can't lord it over developers". Seriously, developers working in an API driven cloud just don't need a classic IT organization around to manage servers for them. Cloud is a disruptive threat to classic IT orgs.

Re:Tightening reins on developers? by h4rr4r · 2013-04-18 01:13 · Score: 2

Let me state this in other words: "Developers know jack and shit about security and business requirements, they will now be able to not meet either of those even faster". Developers are afraid that if the cloud thing does not replace all classic IT they might still have to explain to someone in a meeting why their code falls over all the damn time and admit that maybe more hardware is not always the best answer.
Cloud is what traditional IT orgs manage for you slick. You think it is just developers all the way down?
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by Sarten-X · 2013-04-18 01:17 · Score: 1

As an ex-developer IT admin in a financial company with history in medical data, let me state this in other words: "IT guys who have to deal with information security are afraid for their own jobs when the company is slapped with a fine for letting confidential information leak out on some cloud service that got hacked, or when the vital business process doesn't work because of a power outage in another country, or when a minor connectivity disruption shuts down every business process everywhere."
Developers want to make things work. IT admins want to make things work reliably, securely, and perpetually. In a well-functioning organization, this means the developers ask the IT guys for whatever they need, and the IT guys either deliver it or give a reason why they can't. Security and reliability requirements aren't always the domain of the developers, but they do weigh into IT's operations. Both groups have to be aware of the others' needs, and work together to meet them. Having a developer undermine IT restrictions is just as bad as having an admin placing unnecessary restrictions.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 01:31 · Score: 0

Let me rerephrase that for you. "Developers don't care jack shit..." Show me a developer who is incapable of being a successful sys. admin and I will know you a terrible developer. It's all about time and interests.
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by h4rr4r · 2013-04-18 01:48 · Score: 1

Terrible developer is probably 90% of them. It's a rare day I don't get one in my office asking me some question that a simple look in the log files does not fix.
Caring about security and business needs is there damn jobs. If you don't care enough to do your own job go find other work.
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by alen · 2013-04-18 01:48 · Score: 1

i've seen crap deployed by developers outside of IT input
it gets put on the oldest and crappiest server just because that's a name they have known for years
no backup gets done on the databases because IT has no idea they exist
half the time there is no DR or any kind of redundancy in case of hardware failure
and when it goes down they run to IT and scream how it's IT's responsibility to make it work
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by mordred99 · 2013-04-18 01:51 · Score: 1

Yes and no. There are many reasons for that. Information Security Laws, and control over costs would be two of the biggest things. Without control over the API, development, etc. of applications, how do you know you are running efficiently? How do you know you don't need only 2 server but are paying for 5 because of some coding mistake? Most professional IT organizations have architecture and capacity planning people who do this stuff and when a dev can do something unilaterally, irrespective of costs to the company, that makes IT managers not happy. Also who gets in trouble when private information is stolen, hacked, etc. from something that is not managed by them. My former company got fines of up $1 million an incident for not having audit-able proof (not that it did not occur, did not have screen shots or what not) for an account being turned off. When you don't manage a service, how do you do background checks on all AWS employees, etc? I am just saying there are more and more regulations coming down the pipe, and this is how they look. Cloud services while cool for some social media app or some basic apps, if you want to follow any modicum of strict control over costs, or security, will never fly.
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by cryfreedomlove · 2013-04-18 01:52 · Score: 1

i've seen crap deployed by developers outside of IT input it gets put on the oldest and crappiest server just because that's a name they have known for years no backup gets done on the databases because IT has no idea they exist half the time there is no DR or any kind of redundancy in case of hardware failure
and when it goes down they run to IT and scream how it's IT's responsibility to make it work
Bad developers are bad developers, whether they are supported by classic IT or using the cloud. Great developers, however, don't do the nonsense you are referring to. They care a lot about security, DR, performance, availability, etc. It is this top tier developer that, given an API that procures new hardware, does not really need classic IT support.
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by Guido+von+Guido+II · 2013-04-18 02:05 · Score: 2

Let me rerephrase that for you. "Developers don't care jack shit..." Show me a developer who is incapable of being a successful sys. admin and I will know you a terrible developer. It's all about time and interests.
Absolutely. I know plenty of people who've been both good sysadmins and good developers at various points in their career.
Like you say, developers aren't necessarily interested in the things that make for good administration, though. The ability to create virtual machines at will, for instance, means that developers can create more virtual machines than are needed, which results in greater administrative overhead and greater costs. They can also sidestep normal administrative procedures.
We used to have enough problems with this back in the day when everything ran on physical machines. A developer would slip a box into the data center and not tell anybody or document anything. Later we'd have to clean up the mess when we discovered that nobody had been patching the machine and it had a security problem, or they hadn't configured something properly so that it didn't start up properly on reboot. My favorite was the time the developer (who was in my opinion very otherwise very good) forgot to configure the IP addresses of a machine with anything more than ifconfig. The machine came back up after its first reboot without IP addresses and a good chunk of the customer's site was down for an extended period of time.
With virtual machines, this is so much easier.
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 02:18 · Score: 0

Lol.. Yes because API driven clouds are perfectly secure, perfectly stable and don't need any support, and in fact developers are the best people to think about data retention, security and availability... Naturally the developer will get the call from the user/CEO when the service is unavailable because of (insert Internet/cloud outage reason here). Hmmm maybe developers need to be reigned in because in to many cases businesses get sold a bunch of promises and get locked in on a platform not to mention some developers that code a Buisness into a corner where that developer is the only one that knows what is going on... Look there are plenty of bad guys on both sides of that fence but the cloud is a very useful tool when employed with proper overall planning in regards to availability, security, retention and Buisness strategy but by no means is it the perfect solution and in terms of cost it has major drawbacks once you hit a usage plateau of a certain size in comparison to a split local/cloud solution. There is a lot of thinking that goes into designing a solution not just an API and some logic...
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by SimplyGeek · 2013-04-18 02:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's not always the case. Look at workplaces that fall under HIPAA regulations. That last thing IT wants is for developers to start up their own app projects in the cloud, whereby their apps start accessing PHI/PII. The moment that PHI goes from the local intranet and those bits go onto a 3rd party cloud service, the company will shit a brick because the developer's just violated regulations. There's a reason IT and security requires oversite of app development.
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by ebno-10db · 2013-04-18 03:01 · Score: 1

In a well-functioning organization
Huh?
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 03:07 · Score: 0

The problem is that many developers think that they can do a better job as a sysadmin than a sysadmin can. They are usually wrong.
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by jon3k · 2013-04-18 03:10 · Score: 1

50%+ of developers I've worked with are terrible. But that's true in any field. 50% of the admins I've worked with were bumbling idiots, too. Welcome to reality.
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by datavirtue · 2013-04-18 03:44 · Score: 1

Yes, I work at a college and run into many admins who are openly hostile towards cloud services. None of their arguments have anything to do with any type of real concern. None of them can code ("I hate programming") or understand networking or databases though, so I assume they are afraid of being marginalized. They marginalize themselves by operating with limited skill sets. One day management will learn how much a liability they are, and their arguments which once had sway will be reveled as the ridiculous tripe it really is. The cloud isn't the answer to everything or an automatic cost savings, but these cloud services do offer solutions to once daunting problems. I just got off of Azure after checking it out--prompted by an above comment--and I'm pumped. As a developer it makes my life easier, and when developers start mocking up test apps and demonstrating them to management on services like Azure or EC2 the momentum will increase. BTW, Azure has an amazing interface and already seems much easier to digest and deal with than EC2.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by nine-times · 2013-04-18 03:48 · Score: 1

Sounds like you're a developer who's pouting because your IT department won't let you run amok.
As an IT pro, the cloud doesn't scare me. "The Cloud" just pushes the IT needs to different places. Sure, it might eliminate a few jobs here and there, but you're horribly misinformed if you think it removes the need for network engineers and support personnel. I've run into too many people who sign up for cloud services imagining that it will be an IT panacea, only to find that they now need someone to help them manage the cloud service.
The problem is that developers don't always think things through in the way that a good IT pro might. You throw your cloud application up on hosted solution because it was convenient, but did you think about security? Or did you just dump a bunch of confidential data on a poorly secured server? Did you consider networking topography and bandwidth requirements? Did you do a real cost/benefit analysis, or did you just pick a solution arbitrarily because you thought it was cool? Did you think about how you were going to keep your data backed up and redundantly accessible, or are you just relying on Amazon to never have an outage?
Some developers will think about everything they need to, but in my experience, even great developers sometimes make for poor IT professionals.
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by ranton · 2013-04-18 04:01 · Score: 1

Its usually not that the developer thinks he is a better sysadmin than the actual sysadmin, it is that the developer is frustrated that the sysadmin won't help because it is a distraction from day to day operations. It is much easier to support the needs of standard users than it is to properly support the needs of developers (and testers). We often need to create our own private networks, create and destroy computer instances constantly, have virtual machines with dozens of OS/software configurations for testing, have servers with externally routable IPs, etc. A sysadmin would probably do a better job than a developer at doing these tasks, but usually they just don't want to deal with it. So the developer does it (often poorly) and then the sysadmin and developer fight over the results.
That is the only cause of developer / IT conflict that I have ever seen.

--
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 04:14 · Score: 0

Terrible developer is probably 90% of them. It's a rare day I don't get one in my office asking me some question that a simple look in the log files does not fix.
I know that feel.
Though my personal favorite is, "It's slow."
Really? What's slow? Page loads? Specific actions? Querying a massive, unindexed table? Your rockstar warning-and-error spewing code?
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by onyxruby · 2013-04-18 05:40 · Score: 1

Your sort of on track. What you really need is a properly set up lab environment that you have administrative access to. Your needs are perfectly legitimate, and you certainly need to be able to do the things you do in a timely manner. This is not an issue with administrators, but an issue with not having the lab set up correctly. This is what you need, I speak from the experience of setting these things up when I used to travel.
This is what your IT staff needs to set up for you for you in a proper enterprise class lab.
1. Your lab needs to be identical to production. Rights, operating systems, software, versions, everything except hardware needs to be identical.
2. Labs should never have special privileges to make things easier or faster, if you have done this you have failed.
3. Your lab needs the ability for you to reset any given machine on demand without going change control.
4. Your lab must have enough RAM to be usable, ESXi or equivalent lab servers with inadequate RAM will spend far more in labor than the cost of RAM in days.
5. Your lab must support the number of users that are needed for use simultaneously.
6. Your lab needs to be part of change control. Nothing should ever happen in production until it has been tested in the lab.
7. The use of snapshots to maintain parity with production is critical.
8. Your lab must be patched as the test environment before production. It is never acceptable to have an unpatched lab.
Remember that lab license costs are almost always allowed to be significantly offset by almost any vendor as long as it is not production.
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by ahodgson · 2013-04-18 06:20 · Score: 1

I love the cloud. I don't have to screw around with hardware and most of the real sysadmin tasks are harder in the cloud than on a real server, at least to do them right. It's perpetual job security. A developer wouldn't know a good configuration management system if it bit him. I take over projects all the time deployed by developers. Hand-crafted config files, no redundancy, no backup. It's hilarious.
Re:Tightening reins on developers? by h4rr4r · 2013-04-18 06:35 · Score: 1

Why are they not in the server room more often?
The daily check should have found the undocumented machine. At that point you unplug it, remove from rack and move it to your desk. You will find the culprit when he comes looking for it.
Also no developer should have keys/fob access to the server room.

What the hell is a "private cloud" by LordLucless · 2013-04-18 00:44 · Score: 1

So the idea of "cloud computing" is that out there somewhere, a company has a helluva lot of computing resources (processing, disk, network). There's an abstraction layer between the physical hardware and the user, that lets you spin up virtual machines that consume fractions of this capacity. Because the cloud provider operates at such a large scale, it can guarantee that when you want to spin up a new virtual machine, there's the physical capacity there to back it.

But that depends on scale. Ok, so an individual company buys a bunch of hardware, runs some abstraction stuff on top, and starts spinning up virtual machines. How is this different from the what they were doing pre-cloud - that is, running their own cluster of physical machines? Oh sure, you can probably make your physical machines a little bit more flexible by running arbitrary virtual machines on them, but the main benefit of the cloud is that you can utilise the provider's scale to quickly ramp up if needed. The only way you could do that in a private cloud is if you massively over-invest in the physical machines your cloud's running on. What company's going to do that? Why run a "private cloud" over a cluster?

Also, the "zombie machine" argument is pretty hilarious. I'm sure we've all heard of the infamous drywalled server - and that's just an extreme example of a common issue. How many places have you worked were there's random machines running that people are too afraid to turn off because nobody knows what they do anymore? Zombie machines hardly seem to be a cloud-specific issue. At least cloud providers give you an itemized list of every server you're paying for, and you can decomission them with the click of a mouse.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face

Congrats by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-04-18 00:47 · Score: 1

You just did a story about businesses creating server rooms.

Ooooh... the cloud!

Hype Cycle comes Full Circle by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 00:48 · Score: 0

Well, OK, not full circle, but you get the idea.

I think businesses are starting to realize that the cloud just means VMs, network access and storage controlled by someone else. With OpenStack maturing, regular businesses are finding it easier to host things internally, AND get all the cloudy goodness they had with AWS, Azure, Rackspace, etc.

EC2 is great when you need to rent machines for demand spikes, or if you have a massive web-based application that needs hundreds of web servers across a geography and you can't afford to buy local data center space. It's also good for startups that don't want to or can't invest in infrastructure. There will always be those niches. But it doesn't make sense for internal application hosting once you get to a certain point of stability.

Now, all of us in-house systems people have to hope the outsourcing wave is coming back around again, and if we haven't already, learn about the underlying technologies that were driving this hype.

Different needs for different scales by slim · 2013-04-18 01:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

How hard is it to understand that the cost/benefit depends on your size?

Car analogy: If you're an individual who needs a car a couple of times a year, you rent one on those occasions. If you drive almost every day, you buy a car and you get it insured. If you're a small company, you give your travelling staff a car allowance. If you're a big company, you buy a company car scheme and insure all the cars under one policy. If you're a gigantic company, you self-insure all your staff's company cars.

Draw a graph of the cost vs scale of a third-party cloud, versus your own datacentre. At some point the graphs will cross. That's where you switch.

Re:Different needs for different scales by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-04-18 04:39 · Score: 1

Exactly right. Of course for a short period of time there was this idea that somehow, magically, vendors would be able to offer limitless scalability where if I needed 5 servers today and 500 servers next week I could get that in the cloud for less than the cost of maintaining 500 servers. It sounds good. That outside vendor can rent the space on those additional servers to someone else when I don't need them. The problem is that it turns out that the people who suddenly need a 100 fold increase in servers all tend to need it at the same time. So the outside vendor needs large numbers of servers and doesn't have anybody to rent them to when the people who need them don't need them.
The end result being that if you are a small company, there are significant chances that an outside vendor will be able to rent you server space cheaper than you can supply it for yourself, but once you get bigger than a certain size that no longer is true.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison

BS summary and title by andy1307 · 2013-04-18 01:08 · Score: 1

From TFA

It’s impossible to know whether a significant number of businesses are deserting AWS and public clouds in favor of private. My guess is there’s some movement as businesses get more experience in the cloud but certainly not enough to dent the potential of the public cloud. Still, the murmurs are an indication that AWS competitors are starting to get more aggressive.

That's exactly the kind of hard data nerds use to arrive at conclusions...

Re:BS summary and title by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 04:04 · Score: 0

I read TFA and other articles on that same site... these people need to get a clue and fast.
Nothing (worthwhile) to see here, move along

Regarding zombie servers by jmak · 2013-04-18 01:09 · Score: 2

There are tools to deal with them, and were even recently featured on Slashdot: http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/01/07/1551231/netflix-open-sources-janitor-monkey-aws-cleanup-tool

So . . . what? by Kimomaru · 2013-04-18 01:12 · Score: 1

So, in other words, companies are leaving cloud comuputing to set up co-los? This is an option that's been available for, like, at least 15 years.

You ever get the feeling the term "cloud computing" was coined because people were desperate for something new while the economy was getting its legs back?

Re:So . . . what? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 01:58 · Score: 0

"Cloud Computing" is a real thing and is useful for certain types of semi-common cases. Even a private "cloud" can be useful as it is just advanced virtualization.

"Cloud Computing" is about abstracting away implementation to the point where all you have is a massive pool of resources. You don't care where or how those resources work, all you care is that your service works; and the underlying hardware for these resources can span the globe.

Comparing "cloud" to normal virtualization is like comparing CDNs to P2P.
Re:So . . . what? by Kimomaru · 2013-04-18 07:49 · Score: 1

No . . . it's not a real thing. It, "Let's host a ton of virtual servers on very expensive machines and let people rent space on it." Wow. Not new.

Pretty blatant ad posing as blog entry.... by technomom · 2013-04-18 01:27 · Score: 1

....for OpenStack. C'mon, can you be a little less obvious next time?

How hard could it be? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 01:35 · Score: 0

Hey, that's great. Managers who don't really understand IT operations, or what a cloud is, are having "save 50%!" dangled in front of them and are jumping at it.

I have no doubt that the "fixed costs" for servers for "roll your own" cloud are way cheaper than AWS. I have no doubt that, if you could find them and motivate them, a staff that could reasonably run this would still mean significantly lower costs.

But this is not a trivial exercise. You need good engineers. A plan. Excess capacity. Geographic diversity. Understanding of what will still cost money and what won't. Changing models of how provisioning works to take advantage of flexibility.

And most organizations, who primarily see IT as a cost center, aren't good at this. If some savings are good, more savings are better! We'll host a cloud that only has capacity for our existing apps in one of our existing data centers! You want a new virtual server for 3 hours of testing? Hey, great - fill out the same "sever request" form with three managers' signatures and a cost/benefit justification you do today for hardware we're buying.

And then they'll blame IT for being incompetent the day there's a power failure to the datacenter and everything goes down, because "the could should mean we're resilient!" according to the marketing literature.

I trust management to plan a "cost saving" move well as far as I can throw them.

the grass isn't always greener by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 01:40 · Score: 0

on the other side..

no surprise that companies are finally figuring out the true value of owning (and controlling) their own hardware instead of relying on 3rd parties with which you have not only no control but also no guarantees other than a anti-customer/pro-provider service 'agreement'.

Instances are ... by Skapare · 2013-04-18 01:56 · Score: 1

... last decade's processes. It's just a different environment to make ever more use of computers.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

cowboys like you by onyxruby · 2013-04-18 02:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

I've reined in cowboys like you for years, from one fortune 500 to another. Arrogant jackasses that can't be bothered with change management, best practices, version control, documentation, pesky things like policies, regulations and laws. Self righteous developers that can't see past their own nose too see how thier actions or inactions affect those around them.

Every single time they think they are above these things and that they know better than the industry around them. They never realize why something that works in their special environment works perfectly fine where they have the rights of a God but has all kinds of mysterious errors in production where there they are brought back down to earth. They then chafe when their development environment is set up identical to production, yet it is amazing how quickly previous mysterious bugs that plagued production and caused incredible operational costs suddenly get fixed. They of course never have to clean up multi-million dollar messes, talk to regulatory agencies, sit down with lawyers to plan how to mitigate their mess or have a face to face with an angry Attorney General.

I've only won this argument and helped companies save millions by reining in the cowboys like yourself a couple dozen times. Probably something to do.with cleaning up large multi-million dollar messes more than once.

Re:cowboys like you by ebno-10db · 2013-04-18 03:08 · Score: 2

I've only won this argument and helped companies save millions by reining in the cowboys like yourself a couple dozen times.
Sounds like you should get paid pretty well for that. So instead of complaining, you should thank the OP and his ilk for helping to provide your paycheck. Next cops will complain about there being crooks. Some people don't understand where their bread is buttered.
Re:cowboys like you by onyxruby · 2013-04-18 03:31 · Score: 1

My point of fact I have been paid well for reining in cowboys like him. I traveled for years as a consultant and while that wasn't my job as such, it was something that kept coming up. Point being that every time I have to deal with a cowboy it takes up time and energy to rein them in and bring them back town to earth.
I've never lost the argument, and I've never failed to rein in any department of developers, no matter how much they thought they were big shots. It's not about my ego though, it's about keep cowboys from bringing down the house when their ego get's out of control.
Re:cowboys like you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 04:14 · Score: 0

And at the other end of the scale are companies that don't have great guys like you and just have really, really, crappy & ineffectual I.T., who are literally five years or more behind the times, make really bad decisions, and take years to roll out even the simplest things. I.T. departments who never do anything, because it's always safer to do nothing than to try something new and possibly have something bad happen. Real scared-of-their-own-shadow types.
And it's not even that it's full of bad people, but as a whole, there are enough bad ones that nothing ever happens, and the whole company is plodding along with the albatross of bad infrastructure and useless "support" around their necks. You know why no one ever calls the help desk? BECAUSE THEY NEVER FUCKING HELP. An I.T. department that can't deliver one of the things you mention -- identical dev and prod environments -- and they CAUSE exactly the problems you mention: errors in one place that don't happen the other. Or you ask them to change one setting, and they do (after 8 days and 2 change control meetings) but they also revert 4 other settings to default while doing that. An I.T. department who, when you ask them "Hey, can you make this change on the server?" asks YOU to supply documentation on how to implement the change AND a rollback plan, because their trained monkeys can't even use Google as well as I can -- GOD FORBID we would actually hire people who are properly trained in the environments in which they will be working, or who have basic I.T. skills like "problem solving" and "troubleshooting."
(Posting anon in case anyone who knows me starts to make any connections.)
Re:cowboys like you by onyxruby · 2013-04-18 04:38 · Score: 1

I feel your pain, that's a large part of what I did was implementing the type of things your talking about needing. In fact it was setting up that kind of process and environment where I would run into the cowboys. IT is supposed to support and facilitate the business in meeting their needs. It should never be an obstacle or an impediment.
In order to do that you have to responsive to what the business needs in a timely manner. You can't take so long to implement something that the business works around you. If your environment wants to use Mac's and you don't have a solid reason not to do so than you need to figure out a way to do so. For example I've got 8500 Mac computers where I work that were not being managed so I created a steering committee to oversee them and drove the process to bring in an enterprise management platform because that is what a large number of users want to use - not what I want.
You also have to implement enough change management that your retaining control of your organization. Change management should never involve making secondary changes like you've experienced, that is the result of poor change control. Rollback plans are important though, the idea is that if something fails you should have a plan for how you would put things back.
Things like setting up labs that are identical between production and development are critical for success. If development doesn't mirror production (rights, different OS's, different versions of software etc) than all of your testing is meaningless. /rant off
Re:cowboys like you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 04:49 · Score: 0

Wow. "An I.T. department that can't deliver one of the things you mention -- identical dev and prod environments -- and they CAUSE exactly the problems you mention: errors in one place that don't happen the other." This sounds exactly like my previous job at a foreign exchange market maker in a large Canadian city.
My dev environment was a laughable subset of the production environment, with a tiny database. It was useless for real development, so I had to beg the Integration group to get my software loaded on their system for real testing. The downside? The day that one of the group thought my development package was ready to go, and shipped it off to Operations, to be installed in Production. It was pulled 15 minutes later, and my future demise was sealed.
This organization had other problems, like using stacked ranking to demoralize 20% of their workforce. Not surprisingly, turnover was ridiculous. Every week one or two desks would magically be emptied, followed later by announcements of fresh meat joining the company. There were almost never announcements about people leaving.

Ahhh, ha ha ha. last square on buzzword bingo! by swschrad · 2013-04-18 02:29 · Score: 2

get off the cloud, build our own cloud. also known as bringing the server room back into your own hands.

also known as BOFH never dies.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?

Random pricing by EmperorOfCanada · 2013-04-18 02:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

One thing that has kept me away from Amazon's cloud is the unknowns with its pricing. I have visions of a DDOS either clearing out my bank account or using up my monthly budget in the first 2 days of the month. Plus if I mis-click on something I might get an awesome setup that cleans me out. I am not a large corporation so one good bill and I am out of business. But even larger companies don't like surprises. So regardless of the potential savings I am willing to spend more if the price is fixed in stone instead of chancing being wiped out. I like sleeping through the night.

Plus as a human I really like being able to reach out and touch my machines, even if I have to fly 5 hours to do it. So the flexibility of the cloud sounds really cool where the pricing is not so flexible. It would be nice to spool up an instance of a machine that isn't going to do much most of the time that doesn't actually use up a whole machine. But then when one machine starts to get pounded to give it some more juice. Plus upgrading your hardware would be much more of a dream. You move your most demanding servers to your hottest hardware and slide the idle servers over to the older crap. Plus restores and redundancy are a dream.

Then you still have the option to fully dedicate a machine in "realspace" to a demanding process. While VM does not have much overhead it does have some. So taking a server(s) that is being pushed to the maximum and sliding it onto bare metal will then allow your hardware to be used to maximum efficiency.

Then by having no real cost overhead to having more near idle machines spool up your developers can play interesting games. Maybe they want to see what your software will do with 20 MongoDB servers running instead of the current 3; or 200.

This all said, I am a fan of Linode; where I can predict my pricing very well.

Re:Random pricing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 08:24 · Score: 0

They have caps.
Re:Random pricing by bored · 2013-04-18 16:37 · Score: 2

While VM does not have much overhead it does have some.
This is the common view, but its a gross generalization. For some problems you won't be able to measure much of a difference. These problems tend to be problems that are low thread count (1-2 loaded threads) and have a high cache/TLB hit rate with few kernel interactions. On the other hand, applications pegging out more than 8 CPUs, or doing a lot of cacheline ping-ponging, etc tend to take a noticeable hit. Furthermore, applications that are doing a crapload of IO through adapters that are neither pass-through, nor have SR-IOV or similar high speed IO support and appropriate hypervisor support will be hit with orders of magnitude performance problems. Even with support, picking the wrong set of adapter vendor/hypervisor/OS can have pretty serious performance impacts.
So as you said, put it on the bare metal if your having performance problems. But this is sort of my problem with many of the modern developers mindset. The lets just throw another VM at the problem attitude is so wrong its amazing. I think its founded on the fact that a huge number of people in the IT industry don't understand the difference between throughput and latency when it comes to performance problems. I see it all the time with the "we just need another VM" mindset. Half the time the problem is that the attached disk subsystem is doing 300IOPS cause its running on some internal RAID6 with 4 disks and each IO is doing a read/modify/write cycle. Plug in a SSD and reduce the physical server count from 10 machines to 1. Or for that matter move a table out of the database to a memory mapped file, and return the results directly from the mapped page rather than bouncing it through a socket, and then copying it a couple times through some interpreted scripting language before before the ethernet adapter finally DMA's it out. Its amazing when you show someone that the 1.5k piece of data they are returning was copied 30 times around in memory 20-50 times and that is what their CPU is spending all its time on.
Re:Random pricing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 21:09 · Score: 0

I think you mean "THEY HAVE CAPS".
No shit it's like yelling, lameness filter. Fuck you.

OF COURSE people at an OPENSTACK conference.... by Thrill+Science · 2013-04-18 02:40 · Score: 1

OF COURSE people at an OPENSTACK conference will be talking about alternatives to AWS. That's the point of the conference. What did you expect?

Amazon has convinced many people they are cheap by stefancaunter · 2013-04-18 03:01 · Score: 1

I'd love to see more people taking on scale themselves, but unless the perception that Amazon is a good deal changes, this won't change much in the way of their dominance. Unless you've actually been taken to the cleaners by them on a project, and can convince your boss that owning/renting gear is a better plan, they will still be a first choice vendor. Decision makers read magazine articles (when they aren't playing games on their phone) that tell them Amazon saves them money. Everyone sits around in a meeting and nods their head.

Legal issues as well by davidwr · 2013-04-18 03:06 · Score: 2

It's usually "cleaner" if you either don't out-source sensitive data or if you out-source it in a way that is either 100% encrypted and you hold the only keys or if it's stored in an "identifiable" physical place ("it's on THAT set of hard drives, and it's being processed on THAT set of CPUs" etc.) that isn't shared with other users.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.

Re:Slashdot fraud and abuse... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 03:49 · Score: 0

Stop feeding the trolls, damn it! Moderators, please mod anyone as troll who responds to trolls as "troll"; the whole point of downmodding is to make a comment less visible, and when someone responds to a -1 troll it's like they've partly undone your moderation by pointing to the stinker.

Look, kid, your "wat" adds nothing to the conversation, is offtopic, and brings attention to a buried troll. May your karma drop to APK's level, asshole. Just fucking stop it!!

Cloud = Server by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 04:22 · Score: 0

It's still data on a server, you either rent the storage or you own it.

need one button click move feature by cellurl · 2013-04-19 02:49 · Score: 1

I for one am afraid to move away from Amazon. It took 6 months to understand it. Someone needs a simple exit button for us scaredy-cats.

Help eliminate stupid speeding tickets

Slashdot Mirror

Businesses Moving From Amazon's Cloud To Build Their Own

121 comments