|
Maybe the real savings from cloud computing was the friends we made along the way,
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
EARN IT act is back, FBI and others are pushing a bill to basically require backdoors into encryption: https://act.eff.org/action/stop-the-earn-it-act-to-save-our-privacy
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:Whenever I run the numbers (as pure due dilligence) of putting our storage into "the cloud", I arrive at numbers where "the cloud" is more expensive per quarter than our entire budget over 3-5 years (depending on grant). No, no, it's very simple you just have your cloud architect team map out the exact level of permissions the student will need for their work with each of ten different services and make sure there's an approval process for when they're ready to go from loving around tinkering with their scripts to deploying the actual parallel workload so they can't waste too much compute... Yeah, I dunno. There are a lot of advantages to be had but we really would need, like, our entire research community to spend half a year learning the details when a bunch of them still feel like ls is "sysadmin work" they don't have time to get a handle on. At least Sisyphus has job security?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 21:04
|
|
|
thread posted:Cloud stuff I used to work with a VAR and while I'm not good at computers I can at least tell you the general cloud pitch I was given: In theory, cloud works at scale and it's flexible for adjusting compute and storage loads. Which can work if a business is expecting a lot of changes (growth, seasonal workloads, layoffs, site moves, spinning up new physical locations, etc), and that (to me) at least makes a level of sense. However, if you have a small or regional business that's fairly stable, I don't really see the sell, other than maybe for uptime? But then I have yet to speak to anyone about servers where excessive downtime was the issue. It's almost like if you have half competent IT nerds your poo poo won't break. And if it keep breaking you're not the kind of business to pick up a pricey cloud contract in the first place. HP is doing onsite cloud services called "green lake" and To this day I don't understand why anyone would want that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 21:41
|
|
|
Trollologist posted:HP is doing onsite cloud services called "green lake" and To this day I don't understand why anyone would want that? They sell it to big firms with stagnant IT depts where it takes upwards of two weeks to get any kind of infrastructure deployed, regardless of the reason for this. They will then burn a load of cash on consultants to build it, and 3 developers will murder all the capacity in about a week, a fact they will send you many pretty capacity reports about along with the bill for expansion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
It is for companies that have real or perceived need for low latency internal services (financial/trading), specialty hardware needs (gaming/streaming) and/or data segregation (proprietary, government/confidential, financial, health, pii).
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 02:36
|
|
|
Trollologist posted:
Compared to what? Just running a local server on your desk or in a server rack in your closet?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 02:46
|
|
|
Trollologist posted:It's almost like if you have half competent IT nerds your poo poo won't break. And if it keep breaking you're not the kind of business to pick up a pricey cloud contract in the first place. If you have half competent IT nerds they'll make it very clear that your poo poo is absolutely going to break and they'll try to have a plan in place for when it does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 06:54
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:If you have half competent IT nerds they'll make it very clear that your poo poo is absolutely going to break and they'll try to have a plan in place for when it does. Yeah, it's not a matter of if but when. Getting that extra bit of reliability will essentially become exponentially expensive to the point you really have to consider if it's worth it at all. For 99% of businesses/people, it's really not. Car analogy: it's going to cost a prohibitive amount of money to design a car that will go from "will drive fine with normal maintenance most of the time" to "car is guaranteed to not break down ever, and additionally can withstand being intentionally run off the road by someone committed enough to do it, and cannot be compromised by its own driver trying to run it into a wall." At a certain point, you just accept that a small sliver of unreliability can't be avoided, and make sure that it's "safe enough" when poo poo happens (an intentional attack or otherwise).
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 13:44
|
|
|
Trollologist posted:It's almost like if you have half competent IT nerds your poo poo won't break. And the same people who buy into the magic of the cloud will absolutely balk at any other ongoing expense. A key infrastructure that is too expensive to cloud like all other pieces of the infrastructure? Host it in the office. But it also depends on decent bandwidth for an entire department working from home to use effectively? Doesn't matter how much extra it would cost to unclog that workflow, Comcast residential is enough dammit!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 14:08
|
|
|
withak posted:IMO IT guy debates are the real tech nightmare. I hope owlofcreamcheese isnt an actual it guy cuz lol that companies going under
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 15:18
|
|
|
Motronic posted:It's so much worse, as you know. "I want to put one server in the cloud". Well, ackshually you need to run that across 3 availability zones in at least two regions which means you need to rearchitect everything. Also, since you now have 6 boxes you can buy this HA/proxy product from us to make this actually work again. You just described explicitly putting more than one server in the cloud, which will, naturally, be more expensive than putting one server in the cloud. If you're trying to point out that running one server in any of the various major public clouds is more expensive on a line item basis than hosting on bare metal in any of various popular data centers, then you're right (often enough, at least).
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:You just described explicitly putting more than one server in the cloud, which will, naturally, be more expensive than putting one server in the cloud. Because the architecture and inherent unreliability of cloud computing requires putting multiple instances in the cloud to get anywhere near the performance and reliability of a well maintained physical box (or even VM) in a reasonable datacenter. That's the entire point I'm driving here. Ynglaur posted:If you're trying to point out that running one server in any of the various major public clouds is more expensive on a line item basis than hosting on bare metal in any of various popular data centers, then you're right (often enough, at least). Yes, I'm also pointing this out. And again more often than not you're paying more and getting less. This is not how it's being sold and therefore not how most people see it. Even major companies. Remember the thread you are in and it will give you the context for why I'm pointing these things out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
I was working on a project where one of the leads was super, super-horny for "cloud computing" and maybe it was just my imagination but every single thing about it seemed more expensive and frustrating and difficult than simply having a server/VM. So many of his choices of architecture were based in concerns that were simply unrealistic, and looking back on it I think he just didn't have the confidence to know when enough was enough so it's like "well, I might need to drive up a gravel driveway at some point, so I better get a fully armored Humvee."
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Because the architecture and inherent unreliability of cloud computing requires putting multiple instances in the cloud to get anywhere near the performance and reliability of a well maintained physical box (or even VM) in a reasonable datacenter. That's the entire point I'm driving here. I'll agree that how it's sold does not always reflect reality, but that's most things so  .
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 00:41
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Because the architecture and inherent unreliability of cloud computing requires putting multiple instances in the cloud to get anywhere near the performance and reliability of a well maintained physical box (or even VM) in a reasonable datacenter. I agree that people underestimate cost for both resources and IT, but that's not anything unique. Cloud vs colocation is pretty much just a plain rent vs buy tradeoff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 01:46
|
|
|
Cloud remains the land of buzzwords and C-suite drama. If your application is built for cloud native, then yes, you should keep it in the cloud. But make sure you OWN the data you put in the cloud and that you are following best practices, because if something happens? Its your fault. And your cloud provider is going to shrug and tell you to go pound sand when you get upset. But right now, that's maybe 15% of the average corporate app workload. The rest is still classic VMs that are usually too costly and too large to be worth putting into the cloud.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 01:52
|
|
|
Sorry to interrupt the valuable IT guy website service planning discussion, but The Algorithm has started recommending products for suicidal people: https://twitter.com/maxwellstrachan/status/1489595959197712394?t=CyDm1jXBijrp6ktDAoiRFQ&s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 02:00
|
|
|
Subaru and Kia are pissed about Right to Repair Laws passed in Massachusetts and have responded by disabling remote start and telematics systems in cars sold in the state https://www.wired.com/story/fight-right-repair-cars-turns-ugly/
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 02:04
|
|
|
Seems like a great way for auto shops to learn how to re enable remote start. Not sure if telemetrics are important enough to also re enable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 02:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Cloud remains the land of buzzwords and C-suite drama. If your application is built for cloud native, then yes, you should keep it in the cloud. But make sure you OWN the data you put in the cloud and that you are following best practices, because if something happens? Its your fault. And your cloud provider is going to shrug and tell you to go pound sand when you get upset. This conversation is utterly baffling to me because what are we talking about? Are we comparing the cost of buying and installing a bare metal machine in a rack to the cost of an equivalent virtual machine in EC2, GC, or Azure? But... why? What are we installing on these machines? What are we expecting them to do? They are two very different use cases. Are we hosting a website? Is it Wordpress, or is it a 3-tier webapp using a framework? Is it hosting a database? Is that an enterprise database or PostgreSQL/MySQL? Or heaven forbid NoSQL? What kind of traffic are we expecting? Is it internal access only or public internet? Did you buy the bare metal hardware in a co-lo? What do you pay for network bandwidth and basic maintenance or do you do that yourself? Whose managing your network and routing hardware? Who is the sys admin of the hardware and how munch manual work is involved in keeping it up and running? Are you calculating that into your cost to just host a server? Cloud hosting might be the land of buzzwords (everything involving sales is buzzwords... it isn't unique to cloud hosting), but "renting" a server in a datacenter is the land of fine print. Unless you are physically responsible for the hardware and rack space, I promise you that the fine print is actually telling you your "bare metal machine" is a VM running on overprovisioned hardware unless you are using 100% of the requested resources. Very few use cases can and actually will take advantage of the additional performance of bare metal server hardware. You deploy a server for a reason. Accomplishing that goal may be cheaper by leveraging your own hardware, or it might be cheaper via using a cloud service. Right now this conversation is comparing apples to forks with the intent to dunk on topics I am not even sure the posters are actually familiar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Did you buy the bare metal hardware in a co-lo? What do you pay for network bandwidth and basic maintenance or do you do that yourself? Whose managing your network and routing hardware? Who is the sys admin of the hardware and how munch manual work is involved in keeping it up and running? Are you calculating that into your cost to just host a server? Who is managing it in the cloud? You are. Who is deploying it in the cloud. Most likely the same team that would deploy it on prem. Who is the one enforcing best practices? In nearly all cases, its going to be you. To some degree cloud vs on-prem remains the same for Operations, unless you are one of the companies that decides to let your developers do all the management or Infrastructure-as-a-service, but woe unto you if you think that's gonna be a fun time. The only upside is not having to manage the hardware itself, but that's not often a saving grace. archangelwar posted:You deploy a server for a reason. Accomplishing that goal may be cheaper by leveraging your own hardware, or it might be cheaper via using a cloud service. Right now this conversation is comparing apples to forks with the intent to dunk on topics I am not even sure the posters are actually familiar. The point being the whole "Cloud vs. In House" argument is just that, what is the best fit for what needs to be done. There are plenty of use cases for cloud that are valid and a good fit. But that's not all of them. The problem is dealing with people who assume cloud is best based on the buzzwords rather than requirements planning. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Feb 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 03:04
|
|
|
I think we're all arguing past each other. Can we agree that developing a well-engineered solution should not rely on buzzwords from Sales? Statements that amount to, "My artisanal hand-crafted server in my own data center is always more reliable and cheaper than The Cloud" sounds as foolish to me as "The Cloud is always cheaper and better."
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 03:21
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I think we're all arguing past each other. Can we agree that developing a well-engineered solution should not rely on buzzwords from Sales? Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 03:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Who is managing it in the cloud? You are. Who is deploying it in the cloud. Most likely the same team that would deploy it on prem. This is why this convo is so bizarre. The same person who clicks a few buttons in the AWS console to configure an image with installed software is the same person that walks the floor in a datacenter and installs hardware, wires patch panels, configures switches, writes routing maps for top-of-rack load balancers/traffic routers, performs firmware updates, monitors hardware alerting software, monitors network traffic cross-rack, ensures maximum IOPs and resource utilization, etc. etc.? Why is someone using cloud services spinning up bare VMs and not using higher-order services fit for purpose? Why is someone spinning up a VM in the cloud and manually installing database software when they have RDS? Running a database on bare metal hardware vs. cloud software is night-and-day different and not even close to being the same. It seems like you "get" that there are pros and cons to both, but you continue to suggest that the same people are performing the same actions in both instances. They aren't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 04:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Subaru and Kia are pissed about Right to Repair Laws passed in Massachusetts and have responded by disabling remote start and telematics systems in cars sold in the state Subaru and Kia love Right to Repair so much they want to give people a better understanding of its necessity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 06:41
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:It seems like you "get" that there are pros and cons to both, but you continue to suggest that the same people are performing the same actions in both instances. They aren't. Ynglaur posted:I think we're all arguing past each other. Can we agree that developing a well-engineered solution should not rely on buzzwords from Sales? I think its fair to say this summarizes my feelings here. You are making some very broad assumptions about my supposed lack of experience and we're talking past each other because of it. Trust me when I say I deal with this daily, both with clients and my full time job. I believe at this point we are basically saying the same thing. And regardless if we are not I think I'm just going to agree to disagree with you at this point. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Feb 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
At least with "the cloud", you can find actual data to do a cost/benefit analysis and make a reasoned decision. It's an actual thing that can be used. Even if the sales and C-level people are constantly using it in a buzzword nonsense way. Unlike the underpants gnome logic that you usually get when they talk about things like NFTs and "the blockchain" and "machine learning".
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
I like the idea that on premise servers are free from buzz words. Like IT was lacking in marketing jargon until the cloud people showed up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 16:56
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I like the idea that on premise servers are free from buzz words. Like IT was lacking in marketing jargon until the cloud people showed up. Never claimed it was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Never claimed it was. quote:Cloud remains the land of buzzwords
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
I don't see the word "exclusively" in there. You made the assumption, I never said anything of the sort. Either way tired of this slapfight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
I lost track, did "cloud" or "not cloud" win the debate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
withak posted:I lost track, did "cloud" or "not cloud" win the debate? They're going to drag it out as long as they can. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
withak posted:Sorry to interrupt the valuable IT guy website service planning discussion, but The Algorithm has started recommending products for suicidal people: Looks like the algorithm hasn't identified a product that people are using to commit suicide. It's just noticing that a fair number of people buy certain things together, and suggesting that anyone who buys one of those things should also buy the other things. The algorithm has no idea these things are being used for suicide, and it's not treating them specially at all. Which is a growing problem in general: most of these algorithms don't have any smarts at all, they're highly generic and treat everything equally, so they're incapable of accounting for real-world situations. That ranges from petty inconveniences, like buying a TV and getting bombarded with TV ads and recommendations for weeks afterward, to serious issues like Facebook ads' repeated discrimination scandals because they didn't think to exclude race from the auto-generated list of categories advertisers could target with. Of course, the real problem in this case isn't the algorithm at all. It's that the human managers at Amazon are consciously choosing to keep the product listed and subject to the system's normal behaviors, even after being repeatedly warned of the issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Seems like a great way for auto shops to learn how to re enable remote start. Not sure if telemetrics are important enough to also re enable. Unless the mechanics are jailbreaking the infotainment center to make it report to a third party server and providing a third party app, they are not re-enabling remote start for the owner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 18:52
|
|
|
As things get worse the ofference of suicide will get more prevalent. You'll just be able to buy kill yourself pills OTC because bezoz and the likes benefit from humans Killing themselves more frequently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:As things get worse the ofference of suicide will get more prevalent. You'll just be able to buy kill yourself pills OTC because bezoz and the likes benefit from humans Killing themselves more frequently. A dead person can't subscribe and save though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:A dead person can't subscribe and save though? No but they can accidentally hit subscribe and save before doing the deed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
duz posted:Unless the mechanics are jailbreaking the infotainment center to make it report to a third party server and providing a third party app, they are not re-enabling remote start for the owner. There are aftermarket remote start systems, some of which even use your existing key fob.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 19:21
|
|
