Slashdot Mirror


Don't Be a Server Hugger! (Video)

Curtis Peterson says admins who hang onto their servers instead of moving into the cloud are 'Server Huggers,' a term he makes sound like 'Horse Huggers,' a phrase that once might have been used to describe hackney drivers who didn't want to give up their horse-pulled carriages in favor of gasoline-powered automobiles. Curtis is VP of Operations for RingCentral, a cloud-based VOIP company, so he's obviously made the jump to the cloud himself. And he has reassuring words for sysadmins who are afraid the move to cloud-based computing is going to throw them out of work. He says there are plenty of new cloud computing opportunities springing up for those who have enough initiative and savvy to grab onto them, by which he obviously means you, right?

39 of 409 comments (clear)

  1. Wrong concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think most admins are worried about losing their job, I think they are worried about cloud services going down or disappearing and having nothing they can do about it, let alone information security and other factors.

    1. Re:Wrong concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What, you're saying that cloud servers don't manage themself? This is outrageous!

    2. Re:Wrong concern by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, this is a reasonable approach(unlike some other more fallacious arguments). Some of us are even bound by law to maintain the integrity of certain classes of information(personal, medical, financial). Yielding physical control to another organization, no matter what their reputation, removes your ability to perform due diligence.

    3. Re:Wrong concern by ravenswood1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I like my data to not be in the hands of someone else. I don't want it examined, copied or accidently Googled. Fuck this Curtis Peterson

    4. Re:Wrong concern by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Informative

      Even worse - someone you don't know manages them, and they can get real unaccountable at times, especially once your PHB signs a contract w/o telling you.

      Certainly there's SLAs that almost every cloud provider touts, but just try to get a typical provider to honor one (that is, without having to sic a lawyer onto 'em first.)

      The other dirty little secret (and why I tend to keep the servers in-house for the most part) is the nickel-and-dime billing that adds up awful damned quickly. AWS for example is quite useful, but they charge per GB/hour, for every 1000 PUTs, every 10,000 GETs, and etc. Overall, if you're not careful you can rack upwards of $4k/mo just to host a handful of servers with hot backups and a fair amount of data and traffic on them (I've been able to get it down to $1200/mo for five small-but-fairly-busy servers, but it takes a lot of automation on the back-end to shake out your backups, work to keep the devs from getting stupid on the non-prod/staging boxes, optimize disk usage, etc.)

      Cloud providers make for excellent temp hosting and for bare-bones startups, but be prepared to lay down some serious ducats if you want one to do anything permanent, enterprise-sized, and/or production-like.

      And no, I ain't hugging the damned servers - I use Cloud providers where they make actual sense, but for no other purpose or cause. After all, I have cost and security concerns which cloud providers have not yet addressed to any competent admin's satisfaction.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re:Wrong concern by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And my reading of many cloud services break many privacy laws. The service provider can see/use the data too. Oops, SOX compliance out the window. Save one critical email to the cloud, and you are breaking the law. Customer data in the cloud? Privacy laws broken. Student or medical info in the cloud? More laws broken. Where are the SOX compliance statements from the cloud?

      I've seen none that promise legal indemnity for any data stored on their cloud.

      Until they offer that, I'll hug my server, rather than get fined or sent to prison (yeah, nobody goes to prison for something like that, but it's theoretically possible) .

    6. Re:Wrong concern by jcoy42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I worked around the PHB doing something like this by telling him we'd written our own cloud software and were using it because it was more secure than what is currently available.

      He doesn't talk to cloud guys, because we've already got a cloud provider (AFAHKT).

      Yes, things like this really work in real life.

      --
      Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
    7. Re:Wrong concern by barc0001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > However being it is suppose to be the cloud company key job to keep it running.

      Yes, supposed to be, and actually do are two different things. And most of the time you don't find out about the cloud host's deficiencies until far too late. One cloud company I had a personal linux server with got hit with a DOS attack and their response was to ignore their customer service email and phone for almost a week while trying to clean it up. Needless to say I bought another VPS elsewhere, restored by backups and cancelled my account at the original place as soon as their systems settled down enough. I couldn't possibly imagine leaving my business systems vulnerable to those kind of shenanigans.

      > also with a proper contract you can squarely blame them for any mistake

      Are you truly that naive? If you have an SLA with *your* client to uphold it doesn't matter if you have someone to blame or not. Your client will blame *you*. It's your decision to go with a service company that has caused you to miss your SLA so it is your fault. Period. Say that SLA violation costs you $100,000. I can bet you your annual paycheck that the agreement you signed with the cloud provider will only see you getting refunded hosting costs during the outage and not a nickel toward your actual losses. So yeah, you lost $100K on the SLA violation but good news! You're getting $250 off your cloud bill. Sweet! Er. wait...

    8. Re:Wrong concern by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On top of that, you then require a much fatter pipe to the internet, as opposed to keeping your file servers and such in-house, where you can run 100BaseT or 1000BaseT and get high speed connection to your servers.

      Nah, my experience has been management decides not to get a bigger pipe to the internet, because that cuts into the cost savings, and the company just learns to live with sluggish response. And the money lost from this is not counted against the gains, because it comes out of a different account.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  2. Cloud needs server huggers by chiefcrash · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Isn't the "cloud" just a bunch of servers? Should nobody be hugging THOSE servers either?

    --
    Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
    1. Re:Cloud needs server huggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No you see if you are an admin at a cloud service provider you should just place all your cloud servers in the cloud cloud.

    2. Re:Cloud needs server huggers by afidel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I run two diesel generators, they're backups for when the local utility stuffs up their responsibility and fails to provide power, it's exactly the same reason I'm not going to outsource my server farm to someone else.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Cloud needs server huggers by kimvette · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you can manage to get a link to a "cloud server" where the SLOWEST link to the server meets or exceeds 1Gbps for small businesses (with 30ms or less latency) , and you can get 10Gbps or faster (and bond multiple links to expand bandwidth further) for larger organizations, AND have daily backups in easily-migrated formats stored in escrow by the cloud provider in the event that the government raids and confiscates servers because some drug cartel or "piracy" ring happened to have cloud services on the same physical box as your virtualized servers, AND you have net neutrality so Comcast/Time Warner/Cox/etc. can't throttle your network speeds because you're in the "top 1% of users" (read: you're actually using the services they offered to sell you and you agreed to buy then they reneg on their contracted offerings) then it will be a practical option.

      Until then, fuck cloud servers. Seriously.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  3. Excersise for the reader: by xlsior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whenever you see "in the CLOUD!", mentally replace it with "using someone else's server" -- all of a sudden it looks a whole lot less appealing. Yes, you gain some flexibility, but you lose a LOT of control. Case in point: gamespy's recent announcement that they're closing up shop, and all of a sudden hundreds of major games from big-name software houses will lose their online multiplayer abilities. How's 'the cloud' working out for them?

    1. Re:Excersise for the reader: by zdzichu · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's a Chromium extension replacing all occurences of ”in the cloud” by ”in my butt”. Conveys the same message.

      --
      :wq
    2. Re:Excersise for the reader: by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    3. Re:Excersise for the reader: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's a Chromium extension replacing all occurences of ”in my butt” by ”in my butt”. Conveys the same message.

    4. Re:Excersise for the reader: by sconeu · · Score: 5, Funny

      Anybody who doesn't understand this is either a complete retard or a filthy, lying marketeer.

      You've got a bad assumption there -- namely that the two are mutually exclusive. It seems to me that the first is a PREREQUISITE for the second. So, by definition, if he's a filthy, lying marketeer, he's also a complete retard.

      By the way, my guess is that he's both.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    5. Re:Excersise for the reader: by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Use "the cloud" and in addition to the LAN you need connectivity between your LAN and where ever the server might actually be.

      And if you've ever had to work with vendors when there's an outage you will know how bad that is.

      Even with a single vendor the discussion usually goes like this:

      Are you sure it isn't YOUR equipment?
      We don't service YOUR equipment.
      No one else is having a problem.
      We aren't showing any problems on your line.
      Have you tried rebooting your CSU/DSY and/or router?

      Once you add a second and third vendor (the "cloud" vendor and whomever they use for their connectivity) you'll end up with a mass of denials.

      It doesn't matter that your business is down for a day. They'll be happy to refund you one day of the cost of their service.

      And once it FINALLY comes back up everyone involved will deny that any changes / repairs were performed on THEIR network.

    6. Re:Excersise for the reader: by Threni · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Whenever you see "in the CLOUD!", mentally replace it with "using someone else's
      > server"

      Those of use in Europe already think "one of the US Government's servers". The difference is negligible.

  4. not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Breaking News! Someone selling cloud services says anyone not using his type of product is backwards. Details at 11.

  5. Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck off.

  6. Great idea! by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a wonderful idea! Placing control of your mission-critical infrastructure in the hands of others is DIVINE!

    Sorry, but I think we'll retain control of our own stuff. At least when we have downtime then we can DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, rather than whine helplessly to tech support.

  7. That's not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh look a condescending dickbag who labels people who don't buy into his business model.

    Fuck you Dice, fuck you and your sponsors.

  8. Slashdot, you drunk. Go home! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ad disguised as a troll. These are getting more common here.

  9. Adobe Creative Cloud by prestonmichaelh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Has anyone checked out Adobe Creative Cloud in the last day or two?

    How is moving everything to the cloud working out for those users?

    You can take my local servers from me when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

    1. Re:Adobe Creative Cloud by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Informative
    2. Re:Adobe Creative Cloud by QilessQi · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's Adobe's fault for hugging their cloud servers instead of putting them in the cloud....

  10. Leasing is always more expensive than buying by davecb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's cheap in the short run, especially if you can't afford the hardware. That's why people used to lease time on IBM mainframes in computer centres. Now people lease time on x86s in computer centres, not realizing that buying enough for your base load is affordable, as well as cheaper in the long run.

    The leasing (cloud) people just love people who don't know about costs.

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  11. No matter how much you try by Lumpio- · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And no matter how much marketing jargon you spew at people, "the cloud" is still just a bunch of servers. Stop lying.

  12. Obligatory Blackadder by QilessQi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Edmund: Never had anything you doctors didn't try to cure with leeches. A leech on my ear for ear ache, a leech on my bottom for constipation.
    Doctor: They're marvellous, aren't they?
    Edmund: Well, the bottom one wasn't. I just sat there and squashed it.
    Doctor: You know the leech comes to us on the highest authority?
    Edmund: Yes. I know that. Dr. Hoffmann of Stuttgart, isn't it?
    Doctor: That's right, the great Hoffmann.
    Edmund: Owner of the largest leech farm of Europe...

  13. Cloud-based services company exec shills for cloud by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...film at 11.

    Why would I ever buy into any idea someone is selling who is in the business of selling services based on that same idea? Isn't this just a sales pitch with a smart-ass insult thrown in to gain some kind of attention?

  14. The first rule of computer security... by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is physical access... which is impossible with cloud services which means they are inherently insecure.

    If I don't control the actual machine that has my data on it then I don't control the data.

    Talk to a bank... any of them using cloud services? Yes... but with their own cloud with machines they control.

    That is how the cloud should be in the corporate world. The company you buy the cloud from wants to sell it as a service. That's great for them but unacceptable for many customers because the customer often must maintain control over the software, the hardware, etc. For various reason... maybe you want reliability. Maybe you want security... there are lots of reasons.

    This cloud argument he's making is also self contradictory because the cloud operators themselves own and operate large server farms. So what they're saying is that THEY should have servers but you should not.

    This is nonsense.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  15. Mod parent up! by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First off, who cares what "Curtis Peterson says"?

    Person who works for company producing X says everyone needs X.

    If I move to "the cloud" then I have the ADDITIONAL worries of:

    1. YOUR connection going down.
    2. MY connection going down.
    3. Getting access to YOUR facility to troubleshoot a problem. Physical / remote / whatever. Why isn't that server booting?
    4. SOMEONE ELSE at your facility annoying the government so that the FBI / CIA / NSA / whatever takes ALL the servers.
    5. How do I know that what I legally have to keep private really is private?
    6. What happens to my systems when all of your CxO's decide that they need more yachts so they jack up the pricing?

    Fuck you, Curtis Peterson. RingCentral is the LAST place I'd put my data. You don't even understand why people are avoiding "the cloud" but you're happy to make up stupid insults to describe them.

  16. I was expecting more practical advice... by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

    * Hugging a server may block its vents, reducing airflow and operational life.
    * When hugging a server, you may inadvertently disconnect important cables.
    * Hugging a server may put your clothes—or you—in contact with dangerous high-speed fans.
    * While hugging a server, you are likely interfering with the admins who are trying to get actual work done.
    * Driving while hugging a server is a hazard and illegal in many states.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  17. How the cloud works by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Attention, this is a public service announcement...

    The way "The cloud" works.
    A Cloud or SASS provider will schedule meetings with your management and give a flashy presentation bragging about their up-time, reliability and how your company will no longer need to maintain software or even have an IT department! They'll even migrate you to their servers FOR FREE! Yay!

    You company will sign a 3 year contract and brag about all the savings the project will lead to. It will be fantastic!

    You'll begin the migration project and quickly realize that the provider outsourced the conversion project to a random IT team from their "Trusted Partners Network" that consists of 2 people (1 manager, 1 employee) that are clearly located in some other country but refuse to admit which one. Having worked with competent people from other countries before you'll shrug this off as not that big of a deal.

    Shortly after that they'll start stalling and delay. You may or may not get finished with the project before your management goes back to the Provider and demands the "Free" migration... only to find out the contract stated something to the effect of "Migration Assistance" and by that, they meant you have to do it with the help of those people on the phone you couldn't understand. Your management will resign itself to just getting it done so they can start saving money and dump it all in your lap.

    Liking your job, and knowing that managements on a "Lets save money!" kick you'll do it without complaint. After all, once it's done, its done right?

    Unfortunately, once it's done is when the problems will start. Since you did most of the migration work the provider will quickly move to blame the problem entirely on you. You'll start to realize that patching together their garbage product with bubblegum and duct tape might not have been such a good idea. But, you have a good reputation, you logged all the previous issues you'd had, and you eventually win management over and they realize that the product is garbage and you'd better start thinking of long term alternatives. But you're stuck in a 3yr contract so you have time to plan.

    Then you get an update from the provider: "In an effort to improve server reliability and security we are deprecating ODBC/SQL connections to the database in 6 months" You'll question this and the provider will come back to you and say "Fear not! We've created our own API! It's great! It even uses our own proprietary version of SQL!!!"

    So you'll start reviewing this and find out that their "new" version of SQL differs from the only version in 2 ways: 1. you can't do table joins. 2. you can only retrieve 10,000 rows at a time

    You'll take this to management and explain that once this happens, moving your data off their servers will be nearly impossible. Migrating to another product will be very difficult. So your mangement will bring this concern to the provider who will say "If you need help migrating, we have a team that can help you! They only charge $200/hr!" and they'll send you right back to the 2 people that failed in the original migration.

    Eventually the products customers will all realize it was a giant scam, and start dumping it. The products parent company will shut down the product, buy a startup that does the exact same thing, re-brand it and start all over again.

    Rinse and Repeat.

    Ask me how I know this... :-)

  18. its called the SledgeHammer Principle by RobertLTux · · Score: 4, Funny

    all else failing you want to be able to take a sledgehammer to your server (to make it go offline if its run off the rails)

    IBM will actually sell you a server that this is an approved method (for %BIGNUM% dollars but...)

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  19. Don't trust the cloud by Oryn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is "The Cloud"?
    A symbol on a network diagram? - I'm sure that's how it started.
    The way I see it "The Cloud" is just a name massively over-hyped by marketing folk for a hosted server that you have no clue about where it is.
    I totally get the concept of being able to access your data everywhere and it's a great concept. It doesn't always work. Usually failing when needed the most.

    There is a Cloud Computing Concept that I do trust It's called Private Cloud Computing. There is really nothing new about it. We have all been doing it for ages.
    Its just simply running your own server. Most business do this and you can do this your self with your own server plus the aid of today's modern high speed internet connections.
    If your internet fails you still have access to your data.

    I personally don't trust "The Cloud". Think about it for a moment. You are putting your data on a server and you have no clue as to where it is. You have no clue about who else is able to see that data and you have no clue about who is watching as you access your data and probably no clue if that server is up to date on security patches.

    Yes its cool that you can access it everywhere accept oh.. There's no cell coverage here and oh the free wifi might not be secure and oh I've been hacked.

    Cloud backups? yeah right. I wonder how long it will take to backup my 3TB of videos to the cloud? I wonder how long it will take to restore them if a HDD should fail. I wonder if cloud backups count towards my broadband data cap? Large numbers of ISP's operate data capping the average is 100Gig per month. At that rate it would take 30 months to backup your data and 30 months to get it back.
    What if the cloud backup gets hacked, how do I know my data is safe?

    The short answer is you don't know if your data is safe. If you have sensitive data, its best not to put it on a server connected to the internet.
    So Yes I may be a server hugger, but I know where my data is. I know where the backups are and I know my secure data is and its not stored in a place directly accessible to the internet.

  20. As long as I'm accountable by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As long as I'm accountable, I want the hardware and software under my control. That way when something goes wrong and my boss calls and says 'wtf', I can give him something more than "Well I called amazon and left a message with our account representative".