Google will make it. They currently run Snapchat, Discord, and Spotify to name a few, right? In all honestly Microsoft seems to only be focused on enterprise, which AWS is ahead of them in. I...
Google will make it. They currently run Snapchat, Discord, and Spotify to name a few, right?
In all honestly Microsoft seems to only be focused on enterprise, which AWS is ahead of them in. I think its AWS and Google Cloud Platform left after it's all said and done. I hate using Azure
At the base of things there isn't much difference, the cloud is 'someone else's datacentre'. That said, the architectural assumptions made for workloads in a datacentre vs cloud ARE very...
At the base of things there isn't much difference, the cloud is 'someone else's datacentre'. That said, the architectural assumptions made for workloads in a datacentre vs cloud ARE very different.
In a datacentre, you can assume your CPU, memory, disk, and network is all preallocated with fixed maximums/throughput that is costed the same if your utilisation is 100% or 0.01%. You would normally design your systems accordingly to make best use of what you have, and get as close to maximum resource usage without causing instabilities.
In 'the cloud' everything is dynamic, everything can be adjusted to your needs at very short notice, and you pay for this flexibility. If you have a small dynamic website that suddenly gets popular, you don't have to buy a new server and plug it it, you can just tell your cloud provider to start up another copy (and bill you for it ;) ). This flexibility means you design services that are more 'ephemeral' and can disappear one moment to reappear somewhere else. Rather than having a fixed infrastructure, you create many moving parts that should all be more resilient to failures in other parts of the system.
Essentially, this is a massive change in architecture and thinking, which a juggernaut like Oracle is having a hard time pivoting on.
It also introduces new problems, like a single "cloud" containing so many websites and applications that a part of it going offline takes off sections of the internet with it. We used to be spread...
It also introduces new problems, like a single "cloud" containing so many websites and applications that a part of it going offline takes off sections of the internet with it. We used to be spread out across thousands of datacenters and now that's consolidating into a few large datacenters which are more susceptible to physical and digital threats. As an example.
Absolutely! With great flexibility comes great responsibility! No one should be housing their production services in a single datacentre, be it classical or cloud-based. Just as the cloud allows...
Absolutely! With great flexibility comes great responsibility!
No one should be housing their production services in a single datacentre, be it classical or cloud-based. Just as the cloud allows you to be a lot more flexible with your architecture, it doesn't force you to be, making it that much easier to run into issues.
I'll be surprised if anyone is left besides Microsoft and AWS at the rate we're headed.
Google will make it. They currently run Snapchat, Discord, and Spotify to name a few, right?
In all honestly Microsoft seems to only be focused on enterprise, which AWS is ahead of them in. I think its AWS and Google Cloud Platform left after it's all said and done. I hate using Azure
Can someone explain this - how is the cloud different from a data centre?
At the base of things there isn't much difference, the cloud is 'someone else's datacentre'. That said, the architectural assumptions made for workloads in a datacentre vs cloud ARE very different.
In a datacentre, you can assume your CPU, memory, disk, and network is all preallocated with fixed maximums/throughput that is costed the same if your utilisation is 100% or 0.01%. You would normally design your systems accordingly to make best use of what you have, and get as close to maximum resource usage without causing instabilities.
In 'the cloud' everything is dynamic, everything can be adjusted to your needs at very short notice, and you pay for this flexibility. If you have a small dynamic website that suddenly gets popular, you don't have to buy a new server and plug it it, you can just tell your cloud provider to start up another copy (and bill you for it ;) ). This flexibility means you design services that are more 'ephemeral' and can disappear one moment to reappear somewhere else. Rather than having a fixed infrastructure, you create many moving parts that should all be more resilient to failures in other parts of the system.
Essentially, this is a massive change in architecture and thinking, which a juggernaut like Oracle is having a hard time pivoting on.
It also introduces new problems, like a single "cloud" containing so many websites and applications that a part of it going offline takes off sections of the internet with it. We used to be spread out across thousands of datacenters and now that's consolidating into a few large datacenters which are more susceptible to physical and digital threats. As an example.
Absolutely! With great flexibility comes great responsibility!
No one should be housing their production services in a single datacentre, be it classical or cloud-based. Just as the cloud allows you to be a lot more flexible with your architecture, it doesn't force you to be, making it that much easier to run into issues.
Ah well that makes sense, thanks.
good riddance
Yay! Hopefully I can get by without getting familiar with this ancient system.