A Microsoft employee writes...
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he.
Amazon Web Services (AWS) CEO Andy Jassy spoke against the idea of using multiple cloud providers at its Public Sector Summit earlier this week – well he would, wouldn't he. A lot of organizations "start off thinking about how to split it up across multiple clouds," said Jassy. "When they get deeper into the investigation, the …
Kubernetes and Docker/Rkt makes it much easier to setup and manage. It was much harder to pull off in the old VM centric world due to incompatible formats of both config and images. AWS having it's own format and the need to convert config and images between cloud vendors. Manage the network fabric, etc.
>Unfortunately there is a degree of lock-in with AWS, because many of its APIs are in fact unique to its platform
That would be because cloud computing isn't a commodity product. You can't have a commodity when every vendor has unique, proprietary APIs.
Coffee is a commodity. Coffee beans from anywhere can be interchanged with coffee beans from elsewhere. Wrap it up in a Nespresso capsule and its no longer a commodity.
Your x86 hardware is (pretty much) a commodity. A service from a vendor where you don't own the hardware... that's not a commodity unless lots of vendors offer exactly the same service and you can swap suppliers without impacting your business.
If you use one of the other cloud vendors, you'll have services about equal to those offered by AWS two years ago. If you used AWS two years ago, that would be what you already have and you probably haven't had the business case to bring in the new bells and whistles.
As with any DR situation, going with a 2nd cloud vendor may need dropping off some of the niceties when you fail over and then fixing forward. Personally I think it would be worth it if a cloud vendor disaster happened (say the parent company's billing and data centres were in a Eurozone country and your currency just tanked against the Euro, or their Data Commissioner ruled your laws insufficient for data protection for EU citizens) to be able to move to a local cloud for local people or a US based one.
The main problem, as I see it, is that if you move everything within the services of a single cloud provider then you're automatically a lot less flexible than if you keep your setup spread around a bit. It might be a little more expensive but if one cloud provider suddenly runs into problem (which has happened plenty of times in the past) then you can still rely on the other. So you could even consider the extra costs as some kind of insurance.
And if your setup is spread then it also becomes (a bit) easier to switch providers if you want or need to, because only a smaller portion of your infrastructure would need to be reconfigured.
There's more to this story than ease of use alone in my opinion.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022