Wondering what's on the mind of people working on an hyperscaler? This podcast and its transcript gives good insights.
Things went too far with the cloud monoculture. It's time to remember that it doesn't always makes sense, and in the case of databases maybe it's rarely worth it to go for fully managed options.
This is what you're signing up to with such ecosystems. Can't use those for backups even though people are led this way. Sure technically the data is safe on their infrastructure, but is your access to said infrastructure guaranteed? This gilded cage looks less like a gift when you loose access.
Wondering what happened at Cloudflare? Here is their postmortem, this is an interesting read.
Now for Rust developers... this is a good illustration of why you should stay clear from unwrap() in production code.
Friendly reminder following the Cloudflare downtime earlier this week.
A bit of an advertisement toward the end. That said, the evaluated constraints are completely valid. You don't want to fit your whole code base into the "cloud function" model, only a few workloads will make sense there.
If it fails for everyone then it's not a bad choice on your part, right?
Serverless based architectures leading to bad cases of complexity and latency when used for more than trivial workloads... who knew!? ;-)
Want to scare yourself with what might happen when you completely let go of your infrastructure? Here is an aggregator for that.
Indeed, you can't trust claims of the big cloud players. If asked by they will hand out your data, wherever it is hosted.
A change in culture and political will is indeed necessary. The relationship between organisations and US cloud providers isn't healthy.
Or why you need to own at least some part of your infrastructure.
Maybe it'll at least be a wake up call for governments and businesses to let go of their US cloud addiction. There are reasons why you don't want such vendor lock-in. The political drama unfolding in the United States makes obvious why you should think carefully at how dependent you are from your service and infrastructure providers.
Definitely a good post. No you don't have to go all in with cloud providers and signing with your blood. It's often much more expensive for little gain but much more complexity and vendor lock in.
Definitely not as fashionable as the kubernetes craze. This gives very interesting properties that multi-tenant applications can't really provide. The article is nice as it lays out properly the pros and cons, helps make the choice depending on the context.
Looks like a nice tool indeed. Might be handy.
When you do the math, the cloud offerings look very expensive for most workload indeed.
A good explanation of the S3 pros and cons.
This is indeed an odd situation... there is no good explanation about why this is like this.
OK, I admit this looks like a very cool product. This could turn interesting for private infrastructures. Trying to get the benefits of cloud approaches while keeping it under control.
Interesting approximations to get a feel of how much a cloud project will cost.
Really a bad summer for Microsoft security wise. Trust should be low among Azure customers now. Who was paying attention though?
Totally missed this over the summer... this is a huge breach. It will have a long lasting impact. The scope might be larger than we expect.
Hear! Hear! No, moving your infrastructure to managed services doesn't make sense in all cases. You need to be in the right place in term of complexity and traffic to really benefit from it. It's less common than you'd think due to the marketing pressure.
This is definitely a good musing on when not to go for "cloudy architectures". Most often people don't really need it, this needs to be properly thought out for each project. There are costs involved which you might not make sense to pay for in your context.