Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Azure Outage Across the Globe

hawkinspeter writes: The BBC reports that overnight an outage of Microsoft's Azure cloud computing platform took down many third-party sites that rely on it, in addition to disrupting Microsoft's own products. Office 365 and Xbox Live services were affected.

This happened at a particularly inopportune time, as Microsoft has recently been pushing its Azure services in an effort to catch up with other providers such as Amazon, IBM, and Google. Just a couple of hours previously, Microsoft had screened an Azure advert in the UK during the Scotland v. England soccer match."
(Most services are back online. As of this writing, Application Insights is still struggling, and Europe is having problems with hosted VMs.)

167 comments

  1. Out of band patch.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Really makes me keen to install that out-of-band patch that was spoken about yesterday across all my servers....

    1. Re:Out of band patch.. by DougOtto · · Score: 1

      No kidding. On the other hand, perhaps the outage was due to them not applying it soon enough......

      --
      Solving Unix problems since 1989...
    2. Re:Out of band patch.. by afidel · · Score: 5, Informative

      I installed it last night on all domain controllers after testing it in my isolated testing network. It's not really optional since it allows any domain user to become domain admin and the only resolution to that is a domain rebuild or authoritative restore. It's also already been seen in attacks in the wild so you can assume the next client to get driveby malware will be going for domain admin.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re: Out of band patch.. by Eosi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Interesting... What about all the Open SSL or SSH issues that happened this year, which in many cases were default as part of Linux servers???
      Regardless of OS, poor testing of third party apps / services or poor security as part of your deployment, can cause you to be violated. I have seen many Linux server still using Telnet or VNC for management, and allowing ROOT to login directly to them....
      Secure your environment regardless of what you run......

    4. Re: Out of band patch.. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      We'll hear, next week, about a zero-day that takes down Azure. Oh, wait.....

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    5. Re:Out of band patch.. by skovnymfe · · Score: 1

      You don't think they keep Azure ahead of the Windows Update crowd?

    6. Re:Out of band patch.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps Microsoft is run partly to deliver evil?

    7. Re: Out of band patch.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll hear, next week, about a zero-day that takes down Azure. Oh, wait.....

      And then we'll hear ones about Amazon EC2 going down. Oh wait...

    8. Re: Out of band patch.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of band patch? Is this a real thing? I thought this was a reference to the out of band patch they released 15 years ago....

  2. Azure is blue, ain't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Global BSOD!

    1. Re:Azure is blue, ain't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blue Sky of Death

    2. Re:Azure is blue, ain't it? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Global BSOD!

      Happy little Blue Cloud of Death

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Azure is blue, ain't it? by skaaman · · Score: 1

      Blue Sky of Death? :-)

  3. So azure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    had a blue screen of death. Ironic, isn't it?

    1. Re:So azure... by Ashenkase · · Score: 1
    2. Re: So azure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blue balls!

    3. Re:So azure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      see you at the gym

    4. Re:So azure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironic, isn't it?

      A Microsoft product experiences a BSOD? That isn't even situationally ironic. So you're going to have to explain why you think that ironic.

    5. Re:So azure... by Columcille · · Score: 1

      It's a little too ironic. Yeah, I really do think.

      --
      I love my sig.
    6. Re: So azure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... because azure is a shade of blue maybe? OMFGROFLUDUMBASS

    7. Re: So azure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's coincidence, not irony, Alanis.

  4. Yawn ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cloud fail, like nobody saw that coming.

    If you don't own and operate your own infrastructure, you're at the mercy of someone else.

    And clearly that someone else can't guarantee you robustness with this magic cloud.

    All of these people who say "awesome, because, cloud" -- well, I have yet to be convinced that any of these vendors can provide as much uptime and reliability as a decent IT department.

    I suggest we start calling it Clown Computing -- you cram a lot of Clowns into a tiny little car, and hope it keeps going.

    When something goes wrong, hilarity ensues.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Yawn ... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, but it's never really been about the reliability. It's always been the "not paying your own IT maintenance staff" thing that's the big draw.

    2. Re:Yawn ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Sure, but when you have outages and stability issues which impact your business, is it really a good trade off?

      I mostly see this as a management fail -- penny wise and pound foolish.

      I will be curious to see what percent of companies who went to the cloud will transition back to doing stuff in-house, and just how much that will really cost them in the long run.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet I don't remember the other clown providers making headlines like this. Microsoft seem to have a tradition forming all by themselves.

    4. Re:Yawn ... by dontbemad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once again, missing the point. In my (small) shop, by using azure (which has worked well for us), we avoid having to use money to hire admins to maintain any sort of in house servers we might have. We can then put that money towards more developers (or better salaries for us current devs), as well as paying for training, nicer dev machines, etc. At the same time, if we do have a problem with any sort of hosted service through azure, support is literally a phone call away, and I can't remember the last time a resolution didn't happen within a couple hours.

      Sure, cloud computing has its short-comings. But it has also allowed a litany of small companies who simply can't afford to own their own infrastructure to do business.

    5. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right. Because in-house infrastructure never fails.

      Power outages never happen.

      Lines are never cut.

      Patches never fail and rollbacks always work. ... can I come live in make-believe-land with you?

    6. Re:Yawn ... by netsavior · · Score: 1

      yeah, when amazon gas partial outages like last year... it makes plenty of headlines http://www.zdnet.com/amazon-we... http://www.businessweek.com/ar...

    7. Re:Yawn ... by Chas · · Score: 2

      Cloud fail, like nobody saw that coming.

      If you don't own and operate your own infrastructure, you're at the mercy of someone else.

      Pretty much anyone with a brain saw it coming. That doesn't stop a lot of idiots who bought the shit sandwich from feeling burned.

      And clearly that someone else can't guarantee you robustness with this magic cloud.

      Nope. Because most of the time, unlike when you control your infrastructure, you have exactly ZERO way to verify claims regarding robustness of service.

      All of these people who say "awesome, because, cloud" -- well, I have yet to be convinced that any of these vendors can provide as much uptime and reliability as a decent IT department.

      And keep waiting. Because they can't. Flat out.

      I suggest we start calling it Clown Computing -- you cram a lot of Clowns into a tiny little car, and hope it keeps going.

      And my mind immediately flashed to Michelle Duggar.

      "Oh! We'll take whatever uptimes God sees fit to grant us!"

      When something goes wrong, hilarity ensues.

      Unless you're the poor sonofabitch it's happening to. Then it ain't quite so funny. It's on par with having to take a computer in for servicing, and then getting it back to find out that the technicians reformatted the system and just destroyed your business apps and 20+ years of data.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    8. Re:Yawn ... by hawkinspeter · · Score: 2

      I'm disappointed that they edited out my original comment: "Office 365 (maybe an optimistic name)".

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    9. Re:Yawn ... by Kobun · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'd like to take your question "Is it really a good trade off?" and toss out an example set of numbers to summarize it. Let's say there are 250 business days in a year. Operations run from 8am until 6pm, not counting after-hours processing and maintenance. Revenue is $100 million. Gross profit percentage is 20%. This gives per hour revenue of $40,000, per hour profit is $8,000. A day of lost revenue is $400,000, or a loss of $80,000 of profit opportunity (assuming that opportunity costs are not recoverable). My own calculations for my department are somewhat similar, except I've also included the additional benefit my employees bring in for the work they do when they aren't working on maintaining/improving uptime. Avoiding the cloud is almost a no-brainer in our circumstances, except for very specific & limited services.

    10. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I spent 6 months earlier this year on behalf of our IT Director (who wanted us to go to cloud really badly, because, well, cloud) studying the costs and efforts of doing so. My conclusion was that over a 5 year period, cloud hosting would cost us TEN TIMES the cost of hosting internally. I expected this report to end this discussion, but it didn't.

      My director pointed out I hadn't taken into account the fewer people we would need to manage things (which I pointed out was horseshit, we do colo hosting now and visit our datacenter sites maybe 2-3 times a year now).

      I think, aside from people having ideas that cloud is magic, it comes down to the accounting lure of a low monthly fee (operational costs) vs high one-time costs when you buy equipment (generally capital costs). It's very short term thinking.

      Point one: Unless you're talking about short-term projects or workloads, cloud is probably far more expensive than in-house for most companies over time.

      Point two: Cloud hosting is just another form of Colo. Instead of you paying for racks, or portions of racks, you're paying for VM space (portions of a server). It's just colo.

    11. Re:Yawn ... by kgwilliam · · Score: 1

      Yet I don't remember the other clown providers making headlines like this. Microsoft seem to have a tradition forming all by themselves.

      No need to jump to conclusions just because your memory is poor. A quick search (http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=cloud+outage) shows several outages across several providers. Microsoft and Amazon are the biggest cloud providers so of course they are going to make the biggest headlines, but certainly Microsoft is not exclusive in this tradition.

    12. Re:Yawn ... by mrspoonsi · · Score: 2

      Well, I have a rack in a datacenter, and I have an azure vm, which basically pings the rack servers / services to notify me of outage. In the last year I when I come to install patches on the azure VM, about 3 times I have had the message 'unexpected shutdown, enter reason' message waiting when log-on. Number of times this has happened on my own rack (in last year? zero, you can go back 4 years and still zero).

    13. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the total yearly downtime is less than about 6 hours, then it can still be called 365 :)

    14. Re:Yawn ... by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Yet I don't remember the other clown providers making headlines like this. Microsoft seem to have a tradition forming all by themselves.

      Then your memory is very short lived. Amazon, Google, Apple, Dropbox, and others have all had very notable cloud outages over the past few years.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    15. Re:Yawn ... by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is something you can do about all of those conditions.

      With cloud, you just wait for the rain (outage). You can pray (call an outsourced tech support department) for it to stop raining (services restored), but until god (cloud provider) decides the rain is done (fixes the problem), you're getting wet (offline).

      That gives me a new "Cloud" tagline:

      Cloud - We will definitely rain on your parade.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    16. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer the failure to be inhouse any day. If something fails on premises, we don't have to rely on someone else to tell us what went wrong. We don't have to operate on someone else's ETA for service restoration, we have eyes on the process and know how long it will take. We don't have to hope and pray that a third party fixes whatever problem they have internally so it doesn't happen again, we address it ourselves.

      More to the point, if a failure happens because of my fuckup or my team's fuckup, I can quantify that and I can take ownership. I can't do that when some vendor has a bad day. Better the devil you know.

    17. Re:Yawn ... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, but when you have outages and stability issues which impact your business, is it really a good trade off?

      Of course it is. Outsource to the cloud and cut the quarterly costs massively by laying off staff. Get a big bonus. Possibly share options go up due to better profits and blathering to the shareholders about the cloud. Sure 3 years down the line it might tank for a few days and in one fell swoop wipe out all the savings and then some.

      Not my problem, I'll be long gone.

      So is it worth it? Hell yes!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    18. Re:Yawn ... by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      I've seen the clown car/duggar meme too. When I showed it to my wife, she hated me for it.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    19. Re:Yawn ... by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      I have yet to be convinced that any of these vendors can provide as much uptime and reliability as a decent IT department

      A good place to start would be getting the numbers. Do you know any numbers about uptime of web-servers maintained by IT departments?

    20. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Because in-house infrastructure never fails.

      True, but a VP can stand at your desk demanding you get whatever is broken fixed. With the cloud you take a number (unless you're big enough to make a difference).

      The problem with "the cloud" is that everyone equates it to "the internet" and, through the transitive property, is as reliable.

    21. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But for Microsoft it's not selling basic server time, they bet the farm with Office365 subscriptions too. So basically Azure had better be even more reliable than your typical cloud server provider like Amazon. Given the multiple Office365 and Azure outages to date, it looks like they need to get their act together quick.

      If the problem is that Windows can't handle the real world demands of a cloud service (which it increasingly looks like), then they need to backtrack and switch over to a professional infrastructure using BSD pronto.

      There's a lot of revenue on the line for them and it doesn't look like they're treating the situation seriously.

    22. Re:Yawn ... by Bengie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are many reasons to use the cloud.

      1) You're too small to afford enough full time IT
      2) You can't afford the capital investment into your own servers
      3) You need a low latency global CDN like service, but you can't afford dedicated servers running everywhere
      4) You need only temporarily need to scale up your servers to handle burst load
      5) I'm sure there are other reasons.

    23. Re:Yawn ... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Let me explain it from my point of view. I own and operate a one or two man software company that also hosts web sites. I work in the flim & tv music industry, meaning I have a shit load of music (literally terabytes) that has to be available for download.

      8 years ago I owned a rack of servers downtown here that I managed myself. Honestly, it wasn't that bad. I bought reliable used 1U servers (mainly IBM and Dell) off ebay and stocked them with disks. I ran FreeBSD and Linux, used RAID, etc. But I always had two issues to deal with. The main one was "I have to always be available to handle hardware issues".

      My company isn't big enough to hire someone to do it, but I managed for nearly 10 years with no disasters. In that time I had a motherboard crap (when I was starting out with one server - ouch) and a few disks fail. In all of those times I had to go in - sometimes in the middle of the night - and fix/replace whatever was wrong.

      Then I found Amazon AWS. Here's the kicker - it was actually cheaper for me to simply "rent" storage from them than to rent rack space for my own servers. I moved my servers to linode.com - again it was cheaper although they're nowhere near as fast as my former dedicated servers were, but they're fast enough for my applications and I can always move to larger instances where needed. And that eliminated my maintenance issues for hardware while costing less per month and maintaining the same 3-4 nines level of availability that I've always had. Oh, one other thing - S3 makes it just as easy to secure my audio files but the delivery speed can easily saturate any pipe that the files are being delivered to.

      So the cloud might not be "magical" and solve all the world's problems, but for small IT shops it's great. Everything I do is on the internet so the whole "what if your connection goes down?" issue doesn't exist for me. I do not recommend such a solution for everybody. I have clients in the industrial wholesale space and their inventory & sales system definitely should be on-site with off-site backups. But their web site can be hosted elsewhere.

      Anyway, yes, the "cloud" is very useful for many businesses.

    24. Re:Yawn ... by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, the "cloud" servers sometimes have outages. So do managed hosting providers. So do internal servers. And frankly, although every business thinks that what they're doing is super-important and they can't afford even the briefest outage, the fact is that most businesses can.

      If Azure or AWS go down for an hour, it makes news and everyone freaks out because a lot of people are using them. If your business's server goes down for an hour, it does not make news, and people don't freak out. But for the business experiencing that 1 hour of downtime, what difference does it make whether they own the hardware or it's in "the cloud".

    25. Re:Yawn ... by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1, Troll

      Don't forget leap years - 365 was quite accurate the last time Microsoft forgot about February 29th.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    26. Re:Yawn ... by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Sure, but when you have outages and stability issues which impact your business, is it really a good trade off?

      It depends. Sometimes, yes.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    27. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is something amazon and MS talk about in their design documents. They do not insure the VM stays running, then recommend you build fault tolerant cluster services so they can shutdown/reboot a vm at any point.

      Amazon even goes so far as to recommend not storing data on a VM because they may destroy it and recreate it at any time.

    28. Re:Yawn ... by Geeky · · Score: 2

      What it boils down to is whether the cloud service is more reliable than doing it in-house - which has more downtime? Can you do it better than Azure? The cost then comes into it - can you do it better for less money? The only no-brainer is the service that is both more reliable and cheaper, otherwise you're looking at tradeoffs.

      For some small businesses, cloud solutions may be both cheaper and more reliable than doing it in-house, especially if the core business is not IT related.

      Of course, that assumes that customers of cloud services have done a proper analysis and aren't just jumping on a bandwagon.

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    29. Re:Yawn ... by bazorg · · Score: 1

      When something goes wrong, hilarity ensues.

      sure, because nothing ever goes wrong in the "own everything outright" world. Nobody ever goes on holidays, the right guy is never off sick when you need them most and of course, there's always enough money to make all the right decisions in relation to performance and redundant equipment.

      IMHO, whichever way you go, there will be drawbacks. Azure (and Google, AWS, etc.) outages are newsworthy, that's a hint right there. Just keep track of these events carefully so when the time comes you can try to justify bearing all costs for IT while everyone else is keeping their cash in the core business and sharing IT costs by way of cloud providers.

    30. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cloud fail, like nobody saw that coming.

      If you don't own and operate your own infrastructure, you're at the mercy of someone else.

      That sounds like you claim that owning and operating your own infrastructure is infallible? Never have any kind of outage in your own infrastructure? I think nobody (at least nobody below PHB level) ever claimed that 'the Cloud' is infallible and means you will now magically have 100% uptime.* Just that it is generally cheaper and generally more robust than rolling and maintaining your own, especially for small shops.

      *) Anyone who does think that deserves all your scorn, of course.

    31. Re:Yawn ... by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      What?

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    32. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your employer is willing to cut out IT staff, outsourcing it to a new platform that they have limited control over, how long do you think it will take them to do the same for the developers too? Software development can be done anywhere in the world and we are the most expensive. As you say, if there is an issue found in the software, support is literally a phone call away. It is only a matter of time.

      Sure, outsourcing development has its short-comings. But it has also allowed a litany of small companies who simply can't afford to employ their own developers to do business.

    33. Re:Yawn ... by hodet · · Score: 1

      Excactly, that is the key here. It does have its purpose and all too often these discussions focus on the 'Cloud vs Inhouse'. It's not that simple. You have weighed the pros and cons and have determined that cloud computing is more advantageous for you and probably a whole lot more cost effective. But its not a fit for everyone and I suspect cloud services over promise to some clients for which it is not a good fit.

    34. Re:Yawn ... by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      Owning and operating your own stuff doesn't mean you won't have outages. I have no idea why you would ever think that.

    35. Re:Yawn ... by Jaime2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The calculations are simple when you assume the cloud will fail and your infrastructure will not. A real tradeoff calculation has to include estimates of the reliability of both scenarios. The answer to "Is it really a good trade off?" will be entirely based on estimates and opinions. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that the math does not spit out "no-brainer".

      Some cloud providers will even give you SLAs with real money behind them. So, they could conceivably come up with a no-brainer deal where the cloud provider guarantees your $80,000 every day, whether it's from having your business up and running or writing you a check.

    36. Re:Yawn ... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think anyone is disputing that hosted online services are both useful and, in some cases, absolutely essential, especially for smaller businesses. Well, maybe some people are, but they're pretty much Luddites, so we can ignore them. It's just that in the rush to push everything to the cloud since that's seen as some sort of panacea, people tend to forget that there are serious consequences to outages, and the more you push services to the cloud, the greater the impact of those outages will be. It's essentially putting all your technological eggs in one basket.

      As much as people complain about proprietary file formats, those really don't hold a candle to proprietary services as far as vendor lock-in. If the service you chose, for instance, starts to go south on a regular basis, and you've built your entire ecosystem inside a specific vendor's cloud, you could be in a world of hurt.

      That being said, my feeling is that these sorts of system-wide outages are simple part of these services growing pains. Even now, keep in mind that these sorts of large-scale failures are rare enough that they make international headlines. In another five to ten years, it's going to be even rarer still. Otherwise, fewer large players will trust them for critical infrastructure over the long haul. For smallish businesses, even with occasional outages, it's still probably a net win.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    37. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is in particular troubling is that once the cloud services are consolidated
      and in the hand of a few players (probably 2 in the end), then a failure could be
      a global meltdown of the economy. Also, we are still in the "buy in" phase, where
      everybody is lured into the dependency. Once hooked, the prizes will go up.
      As the local IT structures are destroyed, there is no way to go back.

    38. Re:Yawn ... by segedunum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Once again, missing the point. In my (small) shop, by using azure (which has worked well for us), we avoid having to use money to hire admins to maintain any sort of in house servers we might have.

      Who maintains your Azure infrastructure (I hope you built in all that lovely redundancy for these problems) and how often do you really need to maintain internal servers? If these are on 24x7 you're going to be paying through the nose and if you miss a monthly fee, off you go. Not to mention that cloud servers are horrifically under resourced compared to hardware you can buy, so you generally need many more of them, and none of the bandwidth, I/O or CPU resources are guaranteed to be yours no matter what your meaningless agreement says.

      We can then put that money towards more developers (or better salaries for us current devs), as well as paying for training, nicer dev machines, etc.

      Ahhh, yes. Developers who believe deployment can be bypassed as a cost and running applications in production (which is kind of important to any company running web applications and who relies on them for income) simply doesn't matter.

      At the same time, if we do have a problem with any sort of hosted service through azure, support is literally a phone call away, and I can't remember the last time a resolution didn't happen within a couple hours.

      You've been exceptionally lucky, or you're being economical with the truth ;-).

      Sure, cloud computing has its short-comings. But it has also allowed a litany of small companies who simply can't afford to own their own infrastructure to do business.

      I've also seen a litany of small companies go out of business with cashflow issues who thought like that. Funny that. Yes, the infrastructure is cheaper if you don't run it all the time. I think I once calculated that if you have a server on for more than eight hours a day then you're simply being milked for a monthly fee.

    39. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When we talked to an MS rep about the physical infrastructure at Azure, they told me they built in scale with commodity hardware to keep costs down. This means servers with single power supplies, etc., none of the common redundancy stuff you would generally use in a real install. So, to address that, you need to pay them double to have two VM's up to keep your services up.

    40. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and that wasn't the first time MS has had issues with leap year.

    41. Re:Yawn ... by swb · · Score: 2

      We can then put that money towards more developers (or better salaries for us current devs), as well as paying for training, nicer dev machines, etc. At the same time, if we do have a problem with any sort of hosted service through azure, support is literally a phone call away, and I can't remember the last time a resolution didn't happen within a couple hours.

      Who's this we? Are you some kind of dev-only shop, self-managed?

      I would bet that in most instances, the "savings" from moving to cloud never becomes more budget for the IT department, especially if its money for salaries. If anything it just cuts your budget or feeds some bonus pool for executives.

    42. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone says this like outages for businesses never happen.

      Is all that goes down is that instead of multiple outages throughout the year, cloud services provide an opportunity for an outage once a year.

      I'm sick of people whinging about the plight of the redundant system administrator: if you're not able to keep up with technology and transition to a cloud-based administrator role then you're just left behind, a relic of a bygone era.

      If you really want to work with the hardware, Microsoft/Amazon/Google are probably hiring.

    43. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who says they use windows?

      parts of the windows update backend uses linux systems.

    44. Re:Yawn ... by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      I really wonder how people make these arguments?

      Your in-house servers have never been down?
      Every company I've ever worked for has had their in house server go down (email, collaboration, web servers, git...).

      Pure anecdotally, but as I've seen cloud services used more, I've experienced less downtime. Yes, Google may go down for a few hours. Yes, Azure may go down for a few hours. Yes, hosted git (BitBucket) may go down.

      But these downtime are much less frequent than the internal server. Sure, it might cause some greater anxiety as it is 'out of your control', but overall, I've only experienced more reliability by using cloud services from good providers.

      Yes, I'm pretty sure Google, IBM, Amazon, and even Microsoft know more about IT infrastructure and how to keep it running ad scaled one that a regular company.

      Much the same with any other service. You could run your own home generator to power your house. I'm not sure what planet you live where you think you'd get fewer blackouts/brownouts than relying on the grid we use. You'll run of gas at some point. Your generator will break down. You won't have backup generator in place...

    45. Re:Yawn ... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Then your memory is very short lived. Amazon, Google, Apple, Dropbox, and others have all had very notable cloud outages over the past few years.

      Of your list, only two are cloud providers, the others use other cloud providers. DropBox works using Amazon S3 and AWS. Apple's iCloud works over Azure.

      Dropbox or iCloud dying independently of the underlying cloud provider has zero to do with the cloud as they were application level failures. And application level failures will happen regulardless of if it was done inhouse, offsite colo, or using a cloud service.

      And yes, Apple doesn't want to do the cloud because well, Microsoft, Google and Amazon already are pretty big and good at it. Until those guys start abusing Apple to force it to use their own datacentres, it makes more sense to use those services than try to set up your own (usually poorly). Especially Apple - when they decide they want to do it in-house, things generally get very shaky for a while..

    46. Re:Yawn ... by Kobun · · Score: 2

      Surprisingly enough, I've got those failure calculations (estimated using prior internal failures rates) included in my own measurements. The SLA thing is where things really turned south - for the expense cloud providers who would guarantee uptime the way you describe AND reimburse for outages outside of the SLA, I could have doubled my staff size.

    47. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually cost of rolling your own versus cloud services is a 3 year time frame. Between 1 - 3 years it is usually cheaper to operate in the cloud. Past that point the CapEx option becomes rapidly cheaper.

      So it all depends on your business growth and resources. If you're doing a lot in the cloud then you'll still need IT staff to manage the process which changes the break even point again in favor on onsite hosting.

      There is more flexibility in terms of scaling with the cloud but it'll cost you and arm and leg to do. Scaling in a proper on-premise setup would just be a matter of spinning up some new VMs at which point it is just the cost of the software licensing; if it's Linux then it won't cost anything beyond labor. So it all greatly depends on what you're doing with your infrastructure.

    48. Re:Yawn ... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      How about "Bring an umbrella, because like R. Kelly we are gonna pee on you!"? Obligatory link to a great Chapelle skit..

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    49. Re: Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are storing critical data on a sole PC with no backups, you should get out of IT immediately... or just giv your boss my phone number (867-5309).

    50. Re:Yawn ... by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Right. If this company's total IT budget is more than $80K, then they should be using the cloud instead of having in-house IT. $80K is about the cost of *one* decent admin. That doesn't include hardware, software, or the rest of the IT staff, either.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    51. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What he means is that you have lots of eggs in one basket inside someone elses shop.

    52. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you taken into account the up-font cost of the hardware as well as keeping the warranty current. Now make sure you keep a duplicate of every piece of hardware that could fail (firewalls, routers, switches, servers, etc). Now double the costs of that hardware again, because of course you have a full disaster recovery environment you need to maintain as well. I'm not saying that keeping infrastructure on premise is not preferable to outsourcing to the cloud, but the cost calculations are a little bit more complex than you make them out to be.

      There are lots of reason to outsource to the "cloud" - you just need to be selective about what services you are outsourcing and have a full understanding of what you are doing. Putting your entire business in the hands of something like AWS or Azure without fail over planning is just stupid. If that's the case you'r going to be stupid whether you use the cloud or not.

    53. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the fact that you never, ever, get what you pay for when you outsource development - sure. The skill set of your average developer vs your average IT professional is vastly different. Outsource development at your own peril, but outsourcing System Administration tasks is often very cost efficient (and this is speaking as a System Administrator).

    54. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is why I drill for my own natural gas. You never know when the gas company will have an outage.

    55. Re:Yawn ... by Brad+Eleven · · Score: 1

      Cloud storage's promise is *durability*. Availability is important, but secondary. Speed of access? You'll need to either study your cloud provider's documentation to optimize your indexing or get on with a provider that gives you a Technical Account Manager (TAM!tm) who can work with you and your data indexing methods. Even then you may be impacted by a fellow customer, or even a cloud engineer or two.
      I agree that many have simply jumped onto the cloud bandwagon because it's new. Some cloud providers offer tertiary services atop their basic cloud, e.g. the things that end in "aaS" -- but those aren't cloud storage, just services/apps built on top of cloud storage.
      In general, the understanding of what "cloud" really means in terms of actual use versus marketing is very cloudy. Recall that the first cloud was private and then made public for a low price -- and no one put critical data there besides the cloud's inventor. IMHO it was simply engineers moving between tech firms that caused the design to "migrate" back when the original cloud was simply replicated. Since then it's evolved; Amazon uses erasure encoding, Google's not telling, and who knows what's up with Azure? I, for one, see an obvious coincidence for a failure on Patch Tuesday.

      --
      "Press to test."
      (click)
      "Release to detonate."
    56. Re:Yawn ... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Judging from my anecdotal evidence, your correct;
      All of these people who say "awesome, because, cloud" -- well, I have yet to be convinced that any of these vendors can provide as much uptime and reliability as a decent IT department.

      Unfortunately, also from my anecdotal evidence, decent IT departments are few and far between. Budget constraints have gutted them and few are willing to pay the premium for a good admin. They prefer to hire an "entry level" admin and set their salaries accordingly.
      That's why I have moved from Win to Lin. They wheat to chaff admin ratio is much better.

    57. Re:Yawn ... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Pay him no mind. He apparently left his critical thinking processes on Azure.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    58. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where have you been? MS's motto is "just make it good enough". They don't spend a penny more than they have to.

    59. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it a fact that no one has ever received a positive outcome from outsourcing development? Not once ever has anyone ever gotten what they paid for? So surely every outsourced software project has ended in a breach of contract suit right? Clearly not. It is not a fact at all. Just one example is all that is necessary to disprove that claim, and that is an easy thing to do.

      Now of course IT and developers have different skill sets. So do CEOs and janitors. That does not show that outsourcing development is always bad and outsourcing administration is often good.

      In other words, not only are you wrong, you are irrationally wrong.

    60. Re:Yawn ... by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      it comes down to the accounting lure of a low monthly fee (operational costs) vs high one-time costs when you buy equipment (generally capital costs)

      rent the servers then. Most server manufacturers will rent them either directly or on a 3-year rent-until-obsolete-and-replace contracts. It costs more over time (especially if you keep them running for decades) but it does what you want for the beancounters.

      I think people want to go cloud because of all the hype and advertising. Your boss will have read lots of material pushed at him saying how wonderful the cloud is. Who's he going to believe - scruffy old you, or some very well presented glossy brochures and case studies?! :-)

    61. Re:Yawn ... by uncqual · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, in a widespread outage like this, I'll bet the big cloud providers have a better record of rapid recovery than their customers had in-house. By necessity, MS, Amazon et al have very competent engineers who know the product well available to pull off what they are doing (including sleeping) and jump into any really serious problem. There simply are not enough such engineers to go around all the mid-sized IT organizations in the world nor interesting enough work to keep these engineers interested and sharp at most of these IT organizations (to say nothing of the cost of keeping such engineers around).

      For a car analogy... When your high end car has a nagging problem that your local mechanic can't figure out, the dealer often can figure it out quickly, possibly with the help of a factory specialist who deals with (say) ECUs on only this make all day, every day. Rarely can an independent mechanic specialize enough to come close to the factory specialists in diagnosis. Now, if your car just has a dead battery, your local mechanic may give you faster, better, and cheaper service than the dealer.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    62. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since in the area I work, you can't get a decent admin for under $120K, the numbers would be more favorable to the cloud in my area. To get cheaper decent admins, we would have to maintain a remote office which would swamp any salary savings immediately.

    63. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to do that also, buy my downstairs neighbor complained to the landlord.

    64. Re:Yawn ... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      If your business's server goes down for an hour, it does not make news

      Not everyone is in that boat. If there is a system outage with the systems I deal with it will make the news, sometimes even the national and international news. That problem wasn't with one of the systems I deal with or was provided by the company I work for but was a wake-up call to the industry.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    65. Re: Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really think a lot of them have a latent bias against cloud computing that keeps them from fully exploring it as an option. Providers like Amazon give you all the tools to run HA infrastructure, you just have to decide to use them. Until Amazon has a simultaneous 3 region failure in the US any talk out of outages becomes virtually meaningless. As far as price, look at reserved and spot instances. For us AWS broke even simply when calculating colo, power, and bandwidth savings plus support contracts on one or two pieces of network hardware that Amazon provides now. Aws is about redundancy built on redundancy built on redundancy. Companies that experience outages on AWS are doing it wrong (or are limited by inflexibility/cost of scaling certain components).

    66. Re:Yawn ... by labnet · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but it's never really been about the reliability. It's always been the "not paying your own IT maintenance staff" thing that's the big draw.

      I priced 10 2core VMs. It was 24k/annum. We do that internally on an R720 that cost 10k and needs about 3 hours a month maintenance. So for mainly internal use networks, where is the value?

      --
      46137
    67. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny.
       
      A local power outage will kill a cloud based setup too.
       
      A cut line will kill a cloud based setup but not a local since all the data is in house. You won't be able to email anyone or check anything on the internet but you will be able to finish that presentation/report/budget while you wait for the line to be repaired.
       
      A bad patch can kill you anyway, regardless of where it was applied.

    68. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Only to have both VM's running on the same platform...

    69. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you are talking of a WORLD WIDE outage.

      Just how many employees will that take?

    70. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it isn't. First of all the cloud isn't anything new, hosting providers have been around for more than a decade. The 'cloud' is purely a matter of scaling. The local hosting provider is the drug store, the clouds are the targets and wallmarts. Currenly however we are still at the stage where the wallmart lets you pay the same price as the drugstore, without providing the same friendly smile and customer oriented service.

      The heralded savings on employees are a myth, that is only true if you are still doing your own hosting. If your hosting is already outsourced, like it has been for most businesses - even the small ones - for up to a decade, switching to any of the big cloud services will actually cost you money because of the migration, startup problems and reschooling of your own developers and administrators, and the fact that you still end up paying the same price without receiving better services.

      Like Wallmart, some day the cloud services will be cheaper (and let's remember that is just the business equivalent of 'better', not the technical equivalent), but we're not there yet. It is only cheaper when compared to in-house hosting, which is old fashioned and not the norm anymore. The one thing it most definitely is not in a business sense, is "worth it", as every business I have ever seen make the switch - as opposed to case study advertorials on slashdot - has found out in sometimes terminal fashion.

    71. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does have its purpose and all too often these discussions focus on the 'Cloud vs Inhouse'

      Which is entirely the wrong discussion to have. Of course the cloud is going to end up favourable in such a scenario, but so does letting my 16 year old nerd nephew do the hosting. The comparison that should be made is "cloud vs local hosting provider", and at the current stage the cloud loses that comparison big time, every time.

    72. Re:Yawn ... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      well, I have yet to be convinced that any of these vendors can provide as much uptime and reliability as a decent IT department.

      Your decent IT department doesn't have dozens of redundant colos attached to your network in class 2-4 datacenters. There are statistical measures of reliability for fortune 1000 companies regarding colo and the colo providers crush their internal. There are statistical measures of reliability regarding commercial cloud and they crush internal. Now that's not saying the best internal groups won't beat so-so clouds but they won't beat the best clouds. In the end it comes down to resources and focus and they win on both.

    73. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not what commodity hardware means, it is probably all standard HP servers in 1 or 2Us with raid, dual nic and dual power.

    74. Re: Yawn ... by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Clown computing didn't seem to fit as well now that Balmer is gone..

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    75. Re:Yawn ... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      FWIW it is fairly easy to create a structure to turn internal capex into opex. You can still do stuff internally, have your people working being paid via. a PEO / staff aug firm and have the hardware leased back to you. If the issue is they want opex that's easy enough to achieve under either model.

    76. Re:Yawn ... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      There's ways to mitigate it. I'm not familiar with Azure, but I do work in Amazon EC2 all day - we spread our virtual private cloud across 3 availability zones in one datacenter, and use a VPN tunnel connected to another virtual private cloud in another datacenter on the other side of the continent. Because everything for standing up instances is automated, we can rebuild our whole platform in about 30 minutes including data and applications on the other side of the country.

      Yes, there is still points of failure, but we're not running anything in AWS that absolutely has to be up for 99.999%. If something vomits, we can take a day or two to get it back. We're far more worried about security than we are about system availability.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    77. Re:Yawn ... by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Why cloud ?

      Why not just a hosting provider for example ?

      It's cheaper too:
      http://vultr.com/

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    78. Re:Yawn ... by Lennie · · Score: 1

      It is also silly to want to get services from only a few large players.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    79. Re:Yawn ... by Chas · · Score: 1

      I've seen the clown car/duggar meme too. When I showed it to my wife, she hated me for it.

      You should have immediately asked her if she wanted to be the mother of 14 kids. That SHE had to give birth to.

      I'm pretty sure the response would have been "Hell no!"

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    80. Re:Yawn ... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Right. Because in-house infrastructure never fails.

      Power outages never happen.

      Lines are never cut...

      If the power goes out in your company building, odds are perfect that your users are going to be sitting in front of dark workstations long before the UPS gives out and the servers shut down. ;) Same with most general IT outage situations... if a patch borks your 'doze servers, it's likely going to bork your 'doze workstations. If your Internet/WAN is dead, it's going to affect your users too. Unless your users are all remote and on VPN, a local problem is going to affect your users in more ways than just the IT infrastructure.

      Contrast that with the cloud, where you have all of your users just sitting around, surfing Facebook/Etsy/Whatever (err, Slashdot?) and twiddling their thumbs while some dudes off in CloudLand figure out what broke.

      Another point: a local break in any competent IT infrastructure will likely be fixed much faster, the executives will get their updates sooner, and there's no information/communications gap - everyone knows what's going on as it is found (instead of waiting for some opaque-as-fuck tidbit of info that's first been spun-all-to-hell by some cloud company's PR department, then filtered through a battery of company lawyers to avoid having to pay up over any SLA breaches).

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    81. Re:Yawn ... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Not my problem, I'll be long gone.

      ...and at another company which did the same thing, except this time it's your head on the chopping block (even if it isn't your fault.)

      Saw that happen to an IT director once. It was messy, to say the least...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    82. Re:Yawn ... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Sure, but when you have outages and stability issues which impact your business, is it really a good trade off?

      Sure. You get to blame your cloud provider for their problems, and with luck for even some of your own. You get bonuses for the savings and a scapegoat for the costs. What's there to trade off?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    83. Re:Yawn ... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      But, but, ... it's the CLOUD.

      Off course you will spend more, you have to account for the overhead (sales, marketing, support) of the hosting companies and their profit.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    84. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Azure or AWS go down for an hour, it makes news and everyone freaks out because a lot of people are using them

      If AWS goes down, Amazon goes down. And then they stop selling stuff. Dogfood doesn't get much tastier than that.

    85. Re:Yawn ... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I priced 10 2core VMs. It was 24k/annum. We do that internally on an R720 that cost 10k and needs about 3 hours a month maintenance.

      Sounds quite expensive: that's only 20 cores. You can get a 64 core 1U commodity machine from super micro for under 10K, with a decent chunk of RAM too.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    86. Re:Yawn ... by lgw · · Score: 1

      If these are on 24x7 you're going to be paying through the nose

      Check out he prices for EC2 reserved instances, if you know you'll need that server for 3 years. Prices are similar per core to buying entry-level Dell rackmount servers with 3-year support contracts. Of course, the physical Dell has more memory and disk than the VM with the same core count, so you come out ahead there if you needs lots of memory, or local disk, but not by a lot.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    87. Re: Yawn ... by sharkbiter · · Score: 1

      Jenny, Jenny now who can I turn to?

    88. Re:Yawn ... by Bent+Spoke · · Score: 1

      It's only a Cloud if it lives up in the sky. Down here on the ground we call it fog. You know, the stuff that causes us to loose our frame of reference, wander around aimlessly, and drive into other fog-bound denizens at high speed.

    89. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you never know what kind of assholes they are.

      This year I "lost" a VPS with all its data. I used to have a backup (at least weekly), then things went south through health problems, hardware breaking down, and having that cronjob no more.

      Then, in June, they reinstalled the machine unasked for, probably because their handmade VM management software found a 18 month old "reinstallation order" in its queue. I had considered rebuilding that machine back in december 2012, made a backup, set the machine to "reinstall" in their webfrontend. Then, nothing happened. Tried again the next day. Made a new daily backup, manually. Then more important stuff waited for being taken care of and I stopped bothering about that VPS, didn't have time for it anyway after christmas. I continued using it for almost 1.5 years, regularly rebooting it. Backups went to a new disk at some point in time. That disk was broken when I was moving. Then, some day in June I accidentally shut the VPS down instead of a reboot. Asked them to power it up again, as the password for the webinterface was on the machine itself. Whatever they did, it triggered a reinstall.

      They have a backup, but it's only for disaster recovery, they say. They can't be bothered to use it. Offered pay. An external Consultant if they don't have the capacity. Whatever. Would have paid 2000$ or (almost) whativer it would have taken.

      They were all like "too bad you don't have a backup, we know that feel. now fuck off".

    90. Re:Yawn ... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Lots of places, particularly small businesses, have problems with decent IT departments. A decent IT department will include people expert in several different technologies and platforms, enough to cover for each other, and management sufficient to recognize who is good at IT and who is bad. It doesn't scale down well.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    91. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As part of your DR plan turn it off for a day or two and see what happens. I always hear people say that shit and when stuff gets turned off for five minutes the world is coming to an end.

    92. Re:Yawn ... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Linode is a standard VPS provider. I don't need "hosting" where the sites are on a machine with 1000 other web sites. I do high-end business-to-business sites that need to be available and very responsive. Because of using a variety of software pieces and having to run cron jobs and all that I also need access to the machine.

      As for disk space there's no comparison between a service like Amazon S3 (or similar offerings from Google, Rack Space, et al) and a bunch of disk space. Disk space is actually pretty cheap, but Amazon's service level for S3 is something like 8 9s (literally). It's simply crazy. But it's what my customers expect. If someone hits a "play" link and the music doesn't play they'll move on to the next provider. I had a guy explain to me one day "if I have to wait 10 seconds I'm already on the next web site". He wasn't kidding. These folks work hard when they work and dead links are not acceptable.

      Nothing's perfect, but with the right tools I can run a business offering a service level that would have been unimaginable 10 years ago, particularly for one or two guys.

    93. Re:Yawn ... by segedunum · · Score: 1

      Check out he prices for EC2 reserved instances, if you know you'll need that server for 3 years.

      If I was committing myself to a server for three years then I'd buy one where all the resources were guaranteed to be mine...... The whole point of the 'cloud' is to get yourself away from long-term commitments, move around your infrastructure and upgrade as necessary. The fact that Amazon, and others, have started doing this to look better against dedicated hardware tells me that things are not sustainable in that castle up in the sky.

      Prices are similar per core to buying entry-level Dell rackmount servers with 3-year support contracts. Of course, the physical Dell has more memory and disk than the VM with the same core count, so you come out ahead there if you needs lots of memory, or local disk, but not by a lot.

      I don't think comparing and equating dedicated hardware to a transient Amazon instance in a data centre you will never see is a terribly good idea. The whole point of the cloud is to remove yourself from such long-term commitments. I also have a chuckle at any salesperson who starts using doublespeak like telling me how less expensive something is 'per core' or 'per watt'. It's usually a whole load of nonsensical corner cases they've dreamed up.

    94. Re:Yawn ... by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Sure, but when you have outages and stability issues which impact your business, is it really a good trade off?

      Yeah, and in-house stuff never fails, right? Honestly, I am willing to bet that for the vast majority of corporations out there, their own infrastructure is nowhere near as reliable as the cloud infrastructure from any of the main suppliers. The main reason they would not be able to reach the cloud would be that some dimwit had re-configured a router somewhere again (which would also have knocked out any in-house stuff).

    95. Re:Yawn ... by lgw · · Score: 1

      The whole point of the cloud is to remove yourself from such long-term commitments

      Not so much. The whole point of the cloud is to remove yourself from long-term IT salary commitments, really, and to be able to just write a check for dependable IT quality (which apparently Azure isn't selling this year). Companies that see their IT staff as reliable and inexpensive wonder what all this "cloud" nonsense is about, while companies who just write ever-larger checks to EDS et al and shit still breaks all the time in the data center see the cloud as a wonderful escape.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    96. Re:Yawn ... by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --The "cloud" is no substitute for decent IT admin. Even with hypothetical 100% cloud usage, the company should be keeping *at least* 2 decent admins on staff for planning (resource usage, disaster recovery, rollouts, etc), which-holiday-are-you-working swaps, and vacation coverage (not to mention sick time and accidental death-type stuff) as well as you know, daily work...

      --And that's the bare minimum! Any less than that and the poor soul will burn out and eventually quit, or get sick.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    97. Re:Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A major problem with what you have here is that you're scooping things into this that the cloud CANNOT do - switches, routers, firewalls, etc. The users' PCs need to hook to the network somehow. There is a minimum of server space needed internally to provide the basics of operations to the client machines. Etc. The calculations aren't all that tough. You only need to compare the cloud against that cost of stuff that can actually be removed (which isn't close to everything). Cloud is useful for temporary server space and it's useful for services that depend on the internet anyways.

    98. Re: Yawn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      14? Did some of them die?

  5. Phased rollouts and rollback? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd think something as big as Microsoft would roll out stuff in phases, and if it breaks, stop the rollout and reverse. How do you allow something to break everything at that scale?

    1. Re:Phased rollouts and rollback? by Ashenkase · · Score: 1

      You'd think something as big as Microsoft would roll out stuff in phases

      You would think Microsoft would do a lot of things the way it "should" be done... but they don't.

    2. Re:Phased rollouts and rollback? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's a reason Microsoft's address is One Microsoft Way (1 Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052).

  6. You Still Need Geographic Diversity by digsbo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just like the Amazon AWS failure that took down Netflix, architecting your cloud infrastructure for geographic diversity can significantly reduce the likelihood of these kinds of outages.

    1. Re:You Still Need Geographic Diversity by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Sure, the ones that have to do with infrastructure problems.

      But not any of the software originated ones.

    2. Re:You Still Need Geographic Diversity by digsbo · · Score: 1

      1/5 of the systems on Azure are running Linux. There is not a specific hard link between Azure and Windows or other MS software stacks.

  7. I told you so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I told you so, so many times it's all I ever think about. I knew, and was waiting for this day to come.

    signed

    Sys admin...

  8. Wow, I'd be pretty angry by ErichTheRed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everyone forgets that Azure is a way-beyond-massive Hyper-V implementation, and that AWS is a way-beyond-massive Xen-like-thing implementation. Even though both cloud providers let you be smart in designing your infrastructure (multi-site, redundancy, etc,...the tools are there) nothing will save you from an outage of the core guts of the system. Wasn't Azure's last failure due to a certificate expiration? There's no way an end customer can plan around that.

    I'm a big fan of the private or hybrid cloud version of this fad. You get all the good stuff that Azure and AWS customers get like dynamic provisioning and software defined networking, without having to rely on a third party. Unfortunately, CIOs and other execs just see the numbers on a spreadsheet and don't take the costs of outages that you can't control into account. Power fails, networks drop, and people do stupid things in on-site implementations also. But you can at least have your staff working on it with the incentive being "you get to keep your job." With a public cloud provider or even a hoster, the responsibility ends with "oops, here's 7 hours of free service" and you have to wait in line with everyone else.

    1. Re:Wow, I'd be pretty angry by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      I'm a big fan of the private or hybrid cloud version of this fad. You get all the good stuff that Azure and AWS customers get like dynamic provisioning and

      Not really. I mean sure you get dynamic provisioning right up untill you completely run out of capacity. The advantage of Amazon is that they are much, much, much, MUCH bigger than you. So, if there's a big peak in usage for some reason, you can keep on scaling up to match the demand.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Wow, I'd be pretty angry by hodet · · Score: 1

      I wonder how big an organization would have to be to actually make a private cloud useful. As you say, part of the benefit is having access to infrastructure that you don't have to pay for unless you need it. If you own the cloud than you have paid for every last piece of iron that is sucking up power in your datacentre. Does dynamic provisioning offset this cost? Would governments be the only clients that private clouds truly make sense for?

    3. Re:Wow, I'd be pretty angry by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 2

      A good devops team means that amazon vs. local is a flip of a command line parameter.

    4. Re:Wow, I'd be pretty angry by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, CIOs and other execs just see the numbers on a spreadsheet and don't take the costs of outages that you can't control into account.

      You're just pulling that statement out of your ass. Most people who run large companies aren't stupid, and I'm sure that many of them do take into consideration the costs of outages.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    5. Re:Wow, I'd be pretty angry by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2

      "Most people who run large companies aren't stupid, and I'm sure that many of them do take into consideration the costs of outages."

      Not stupid, but MBAs in my experience never actually dig into the spreadsheets and figure out the meaning behind the number. They just see what the vendors promise them over multiple free lunches, golf trips, etc. It doesn't help that most CIOs aren't really technology people, or are so divorced from the day to day operations that they don't know what impact a decision like that has.

      It's the short sighted MBA disease -- if cost of onsite service is greater than shiny rosy cloud picture the vendor is painting, get rid of the onsite service regardless of operations impact. The other problem is that most of the decision makers will just bail when the first failure happens, after having collected the bonus for getting rid of the IT team.

    6. Re:Wow, I'd be pretty angry by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      The other problem is that most of the decision makers will just bail when the first failure happens, after having collected the bonus for getting rid of the IT team.

      And the smart ones bail right after collecting their bonus, before the first failure happens...

    7. Re:Wow, I'd be pretty angry by afidel · · Score: 2

      Would governments be the only clients that private clouds truly make sense for?

      Nah, we're on the small side of the S&P 500 and our "private cloud" has enough spare capacity to bring entire new projects online, spin up testing instances, provide an entire parallel Citrix farm (we're upgrading and want to have the old farm available for fallback in case we hit a critical bug), and still provide for the failure of up to two hosts without any overprovisioning. Infrastructure hardware and operating costs are less than 5% of our annual IT budget. For most companies that aren't doing massive public websites people and software costs will dominate over the cost of infrastructure.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:Wow, I'd be pretty angry by hodet · · Score: 1

      Those numbers surprise me. thanks.

  9. darn! by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Now I have to tell my boss that clouds aren't made out of magical unicorn cotton candy crystals after all!

    Juuuuust kiiiiiddding. We don't use cloud services.

  10. Maybe they should hire some more QA staff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps Microsoft should hire some more QA staff into OSG. I'm sure the several thousand they just laid off would be happy to make sure Azure works.

  11. Office 360 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Simple, just rename it to Office 360.

    Problem solved.

  12. Does MS offer any guarantees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I mean, what happens now? If I use Azure in my business, and because this outage I have lost x dollars in business transactions that i could not carry out, is MS going to compensate me in any way? Or is Azure one those services that comes without any guarantees?

    1. Re:Does MS offer any guarantees? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If you want that kind of thing, you need to pay a lot more.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  13. They did the right thing in taking Azure down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to install the latest security patches.

  14. outage for Windows 8 apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I noticed that some Windows 8 apps that are in the start panel don't work. I wonder if this Azure outage is causing the Windows 8 app to not work.

  15. The cloud... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cloud = disk storage for stupid people.

  16. What am I not getting? by hyades1 · · Score: 2

    I just can't get my head around the idea that somebody would take information vital to their needs and put it beyond reach, under the control of other people whose priorities probably don't match theirs.

    What advantages are so overwhelming that they make this a sensible thing to do?

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:What am I not getting? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 0

      You've just said that you simply do not believe in the concept of specialization.

      For example, you can't conceive of taking information vital to your needs, say, medical knowledge, and putting it beyond your reach, under the control of other people with different priorities, i.e. doctors.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:What am I not getting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) It's way cheaper
      2) It's still more reliable than with the internal morons

    3. Re:What am I not getting? by Ksevio · · Score: 0

      Yeah! Exactly why I generate my own electricity and produce my own food. I'm also my own ISP - not connected to that so called "Internet" beyond my control.

    4. Re:What am I not getting? by labnet · · Score: 2

      Cheaper?
      10 x 2core vms is $20k /annum. We do that on r720 that cost $10k and a couple of hours a month maintainance.

      --
      46137
    5. Re:What am I not getting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm sure you build your own cars too, because your business needs transportation, and it would be crazy to put that vital need in the hands of others, whose priorities probably don't match yours.

  17. Uhmmm....What? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Isn't a cloud supposed to be, you know, *distributed*? So that this sort of thing doesn't ever happen, barring a catastrophe of no less than nation-wide proportions, where people are more liable to be more worried about other things than availability of said service anyways.

    I would think this is more an illustration of a failure on Microsoft's part to properly implement their cloud services than it is indicative of a failure of such services in general.

    1. Re:Uhmmm....What? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      One characteristic of redundant computer systems is that they can all go haywire for the same reason at the same time. Very few other large systems work that way.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  18. This is the fatal flaw by tacokill · · Score: 1

    If the service you chose, for instance, starts to go south on a regular basis, and you've built your entire ecosystem inside a specific vendor's cloud, you could be in a world of hurt.

    This right here is why I don't use cloud services and do everything I can to make them unattractive to the users. The more "investment" made into a given cloud system, the more "pain" received when the cloud goes down. As things currently stand, that means I don't trust the cloud for anything other than basic commodity services that can be easily replicated by a number of cloud providers.

    My experience also tells me that I am a small fish and I possess very little leverage when I deal with the cloud providers. When things go south, I am not big enough to get anyone to care so I am forced to "take what they give me". Worse, my only recourse is to take my business elsewhere, which is why my comment above is so important.

    All in all, it's just not a good deal for anyone that values control. If I were a shop with little to no IT skills, I could overlook the loss of control as the payoff for not requiring an IT dept is hard to pass up. However, just as soon as you sign up and do that -- now what? Who is going to "drive" your IT dept and make your IT better tomorrow than it is today? The cloud provider? Ha!

  19. Could have been worse... by Gadget27 · · Score: 1

    Yes, nobody wants downtime. It has been about 2 years since I've migrated everything to Azure. In that time, I've experience a handful of outages. All of them were under an hour in duration. Last night's outage was about 3 hours, and the longest I've experienced with Azure. If that's the way the service performs, I'll accept that. Why, you may ask. Prior to Azure I had been using Amazon EC2. In that time there were only 2 outages of note. The big problem there is that those EC2 outages were measure in DAYS not hours. I would much rather have 5 1 hour outages in a year that 2 multi-day outages every two years. Small outages can sometimes fly under the radar for me if they happen during off peak times, but outages measured in days mean you're in for some hurt.

  20. Awesome! wait on experts so we can run again by tacokill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So let me get this straight.....your cloud is down and your only recourse is to depend on the cloud provider's highly skilled technicians to diagnose and fix the problem? Sign me up! There's nothing I like more than only one path forward which is completely dependent on specialists. /s

    Are you kidding or do you not understand how large companies, in particular cloud companies, operate? Have you ever had to call one about an unknown issue? Try it sometime....you'll learn a lot.

  21. Did they boot . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . . from a re-used AOL floppy again?

  22. They ALL "go down", sooner or later... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2 of my sources for custom hosts data use it (due to demand of this data they HAD to move to AMAZON UnDDoS'able hosting) in this program of mine (for better speed, security, reliability & more) APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    * Yes, they've "gone down" @ times too... so MS doing the same isn't exactly some event, it part of what you get with distributed loads systems - added complexity = more room for breakdown (with even single parts failing, the chain snaps).

    (It's part of why I think the web's complexity, along with some bad ideas in scripting languages for browsers, is inherently overall, well... bad: Too many moving parts room for breakdown & failure, etc. (as well as avenues for attack + misuse)).

    APK

    P.S.=> Nothing's perfect & I honestly don't expect it ever will be completely - see subject above... apk

  23. Beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, please, please, put beta on asure.

  24. Re:Awesome! wait on experts so we can run again by jbolden · · Score: 1

    Large cloud companies treat large clients wonderfully. Large cloud companies treat midsized clients like crap. Midsized cloud companies treat midsized client quite well. This is the sort of thing you should be discussing with your cloud agent, getting you into a rightsized relationship with your vendor. Which BTW is also likely to save you money.

  25. To all the people saying the cloud by zennling · · Score: 1

    Removes the need for IT staff - who exactly manages your cloud? If its you, congratulations, you are the IT staff. Just because the hardware has become 'not your problem', does not mean their is that much less to do - as a system's engineer looks after web infra and who just started getting in to AWS, my focus has shifted from doing backups, looking after hardware maintenance, out of hours outages etc, to continuing ensuring 5 9's up time, automating the infra, and...organising out of hours outages where I can for the important things Amazon needs to do behind the scenes. So yeah, almost the same job desc minus a bit of hardware babysitting.

  26. Why should "Azure" be any different? by Helldesk+Hound · · Score: 1

    Nothing abnormal here. Sounds like regular Microsoft availability to me.
    All Microsoft servers require regular (at least monthly) patching to keep them secure.
    All Microsoft products require regular restarting to keep them available and performing correctly when you want them.
    Why should "Azure" be any different?

  27. Nadella Satya by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Should quit?

  28. Re:This is nothing new for Microsoft by terjeber · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that's why Apple chose them as their iCloud provider. Are you always this retarded or only when Linus blows you?