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?

27 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 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.
    6. 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...

  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. 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 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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 QilessQi · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  10. 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.

  11. 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?
  12. 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... :-)

  13. 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".