[dim0r]

Multi-Cloud can be hard to do right and there are plenty of traps along the way. It sure doesn't make sense to go that way just for Disaster Recovery, unless you need to be prepared for the unlikely event that Amazon or Google will suddenly get wiped out of the planet.

That said, going Multi-Cloud is indeed unavoidable in a growing number of settings. So, instead of looking at it as a source of troubles, it can be leveraged as a way to extract the best features out of each provider, to avoid lock-in wherever it makes business sense and to minimize costs by distributing workloads accordingly. That introduces new issues regarding access control, cost analysis, auditing and governance which are best managed by a Multi-Cloud Management Platform.

If you're looking for such a tool check out https://mist.io

It's an open source CMP that supports most popular public & private clouds, as well as Hypervisors and container hosts. It takes care of provisioning, monitoring, RBAC, cost analysis and automation/orchestration. It can also be used to deploy Kubernetes clusters on any supported cloud.

Disclaimer: I'm one of the founders.

[jarfil]

There, open source, that's the key point to avoid lock-in.

There is no problem with going with any single provider, as long as you "can" replicate any functionality you're using. You may never actually replicate it, but that ability is what makes me trust a provider... because even if they fail, I know it won't be too much of a problem.