• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Are all software platforms going to cloud?

J

jkunst

n00b
Joined
Jul 8, 2022
Messages
2
Hello my friends! I am wondering if you think all digital platforms are migrating to the cloud? LiveVox just migrated to Amazon AWS and it got me thinking, are all platforms going to end up on a cloud infrastructure one day? Is there any advantage to NOT MIGRATING?
 
I would agree most will go to the cloud because companies want to employ fewer people and own less capital. It allows companies to serve global content whilst owning less.

Cloud providers cost a shit ton of money. One of my prior employers was on Azure for 3 months and got over a 30 million dollar bill.

These services run on a meter. You're going to pay through the nose for large installations.

That being said, after working at 3 companies that had their own servers, Match.com, AIG and now a startup named Neurothink when you own your own gear, you pay for it, and that's it. Use it how you please. It's like owning your car versus leasing it. It's easy to have a Lambo for the night to look like a baller when you rent one. But owning versus borrowing is a whole different level of ballerness.

No different for servers. There's a reason Facebook has a gazillion servers instead of using a cloud provider. There's a reason Amazon has their own delivery fleet, drivers, and planes. If you can manage it effectively, doing it yourself is better.
 
Facebook has a gazillion servers cause they're facebook, in addition to being on the cloud, they're one of Amazon's biggest customers.

Also, as per usual this car analogy is flawed as well. Owning vs leasing a car is nothing like owning servers/datacenters vs using a cloud service. With the cars, in either choice, all you have in the end is a car. With cloud services, you get a lot more than just servers, you get the security and support that's you'd have to provide yourself. People don't usually consider that on here but huge amounts of resources are spent on just keeping servers up, fast and secure that cloud services are generally responsible for right of out of box.

For a better comparison, you would have to add on that when leasing, you get 24/7 security for any threats, physical or digital, an on call mechanic that performs expected maintenance regularly and automatically, a dealership that can give you a car anywhere in the world ... The list goes on
 
Cloud also isn't "just servers". Things like AKS/EKS, load balancers, container registries, DB instances, analytics, identity management, and on and on and on. That's not even touching on the topics for things like speed of delivery of things (how long are YOUR lead times for switches right now?) as well.
Folks that just use compute and storage, and very often vastly over sized for their needs are, end up spending more than they can/should. Mostly that stems from ignorance and incompetency.
 
The future is cloud-only services and subscript-based licensing. This probably lets them charge you a large sum of money without breaking down what you're actually buying.
 
djoye said:
The future is cloud-only services and subscript-based licensing. This probably lets them charge you a large sum of money without breaking down what you're actually buying.
Click to expand...
Math is hard, mmmkay? :p
 

PBS broadcaster loses access to 50TB of data comprising 70 years of TV history after contracted cloud storage vendor goes defunct — public TV channel sues Iron Mountain data center, which hosts archival materials, to ensure preservation​

News
By Jowi Morales Published 3 hours ago

According to Current, the channel used Open Source Storage, or OSS, for storing over 50TB of data — but it suddenly lost access to its data earlier this year. Nine PBS has been working with OSS and its predecessor since 2019 and intended to renew its contract on March 6 of this year. The company never responded and abruptly cut off the station’s data access even though it still had 30 days to retrieve its data after the contract ended.

The station dug a little bit deeper when it discovered that the OSS website no longer existed and was listed as delinquent under the Colorado Secretary of State.

This left the channel at a loss, so it continued its case against OSS, and the court ruled that Nine PBS had all the rights to access its data stored with OSS and that the latter should "facilitate its transfer to a new vendor." The channel’s attorney also reached out to Iron Mountain to inform the company of the pending case in Colorado; Iron Mountain finally admitted to holding the data. Iron Mountain initially agreed to turn over Nine PBS’ data, but it eventually backtracked and claimed that OSS owned the data it stored. Because of this, Nine PBS now has no choice but to sue Iron Mountain, too, to ensure the data is not deleted.

It seems that the safest legal way to resolve this issue is for Nine PBS to get a court order requiring Iron Mountain to turn over its data. But the channel must act quickly to ensure that its data, which Nine PBS VP and CCO Leah Freeman said to Current represented "70 years of our organization’s history," stays safe.

It's not clear if the channel has backups of its data, but based on its determination, we suspect not.

https://www.tomshardware.com/softwa...-ensure-preservation#xenforo-comments-3899160
 
50 terabyte is such a ridiculously small amount of data, that would cost virtually zero to have a local version, it would be strange to not have it (3 regular USB harddrive can hold all of that....), having 3 copy in 3 different part of the building would still be really cheap.

We are talking people with regular PLex server amount of data here... not even commercial need.
 
pendragon1 said:
not until very recently.
Click to expand...
Has we get old, very recently can mean different things (Sometime I feel 2008 was...), but it has been for at least a decade and that contract with OSS is only since 2019.

In 2014, 64 TB, using 4TB sweet spot would have been just ~$3000, with a nice pro-issh NAS still talking around $5000 for the whole think, in 2019 it was probably cheaper than right now to do.

For some company maybe you understand, but a media production company, storing footage that something they always did and part of the job (and that they probably did for other things), renting for an extra cloud copy is obviously perfectly fine, but relying on it and not using a AWS, backblaze, google level of serious company...
 
LukeTbk said:
Has we get old, very recently can mean different things (Sometime I feel 2008 was...), but it has been for at least a decade and that contract with OSS is only since 2019.

In 2014, 64 TB, using 4TB sweet spot would have been just ~$3000, with a nice pro-issh NAS still talking around $5000 for the whole think, in 2019 it was probably cheaper than right now to do.

For some company maybe you understand, but a media production company, storing footage that something they always did and part of the job (and that they probably did for other things), renting for an extra cloud copy is obviously perfectly fine, but relying on it and not using a AWS, backblaze, google level of serious company...
Click to expand...
blah blah blah, its 70 years of data they have been collecting....
 
pendragon1 said:
blah blah blah, its 70 years of data they have been collecting....
Click to expand...
I really doubt they were digitising that data for 70 years;), would it have been scan of mediaval painting it is not that relevant , what matter to judge the quality of their IT decision making is what was the situation when they decided to put their data only on a single small playerr cloud provider with a very shaky history.
 
jkunst said:
Yes, control can be very important but I personally think speed and expandability trump that.
Click to expand...
For a higher cost go nuts...

For those of us in IT, we know, Cloud is "just someone's elses system", and since it has come out, seldom do the promises of "cheaper,faster,more secure" ever hold true.

The Cloud has it's place, but you need to use the right tool for the job, and the cloud is not a solution for everything. The move back to on-prem or at least Hybrid has been growing every year as cloud providers gouge you more and more.
 
blackmomba said:
........With cloud services, you get a lot more than just servers, you get the security and support that's you'd have to provide yourself. People don't usually consider that on here but huge amounts of resources are spent on just keeping servers up, fast and secure that cloud services are generally responsible for right of out of box.
Click to expand...
Sorry, case specific, security you have to provide / implement/configure yourself also above the bare metal layer...a myth of the cloud, is it is not more secure in all cases. If you can not secure your systems on-prem, you wont know how to secure them in the cloud either...

Shall we get into the Azure comprimises and Exchange? You have no control over that side of things and "hope" with the shared responsibility model, your cloud provider is doing their best....

Now of course this depends on what you are consuming....SaaS vs IaaS et cetera. SaaS services like Exchange, sure, you don't have to worry about the underlying OS and app layer, but you do need to manage and secure your own tenant...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top