[arkadiyt]

Gave it a try. Here's my feedback in no particular order:

- I couldn't get into my account to start playing around for a while because your email verification is flagged as spam

- Basic resources like AWS Security Groups are missing. The product seems to heavily lean towards Azure

- I like that you provide an infinite grid for free (cloudcraft only has this on their paid plan)

- I don't like the clutter of having all the Azure/GCP/AWS resources grouped by type ("Compute", "Databases", etc). 99% of companies are single-cloud and it would be more convenient if I could filter down to just AWS

- Lots of UI buttons are missing tooltips - I have no idea what your icons mean

- There's no account editing, you can't change your password & there's no 2fa support

[softwarelimits]

> I don't like the clutter of having all the Azure/GCP/AWS resources grouped by type ("Compute", "Databases", etc). 99% of companies are single-cloud and it would be more convenient if I could filter down to just AWS

But it would be very cool to have details abstracted in a way that it would be easier to build architectures for several cloud providers with one diagram.

[jcims]

This sounds great in theory but I would be interested to see if anyone has successfully abstracted the provider out if their architecture.

In my experience the only way to do this is to limit your service to leveraging the lowest common features of services that are common to each privider.

[toomanybeersies]

Really depends on what you're doing. If you have something like a simple Rails stack it's fairly trivial.

From experiences it's easy enough to abstract NoSQL (i.e. AWS DynamoDB and GCP Firestore) and Serverless functions (AWS Lambda and GCP Cloud Functions), although you need to write abstractions for them in your code.

I have no experience with ML, but I'd imagine that's where it gets a lot harder to abstract these out.

Both Microsoft [1] and Google [2] provide tables with their equivalents to AWS services.

[1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/aws-prof...

[2] https://cloud.google.com/free/docs/map-aws-google-cloud-plat...

[antpls]

> Serverless functions (AWS Lambda and GCP Cloud Functions)

Look for severless benchmarks on your favorite search engine. The performance and trade-off for what seems to be the same service are not homogeneous across providers. This could completely change your costs, and then your architecture. To compare cloud providers or build multi-providers cloud, you have to be careful at comparing apples and apples, or build some kind of simulator first

[thawkins]

Running kubernetes on a cloud system allows abstraction of the provider. We have tried it (in testing) between Azure and AWS, having a simple POC system running part on each.

[andyfleming]

Or a “generic cloud” set

[purple-again]

I remember reading that something like 80% of large companies are multi cloud. This stat came from some group that puts out a big report on the state of the cloud industry each year.

[vr46]

Probably true, but my own experience tells me that they also run distinct services on multiple clouds that are unrelated and isolated, rather than running services across clouds. (For the most part: I have seen a few cross-cloud applications. Never optimal.)

[NewsAware]

If you have a company of 5k plus employees different teams are bound to use different cloud providers without even being aware of such. Such companies are also those being interviewed by Gartner or Forrester etc.

[Thorrez]

But since it's different teams using different providers, there's not much need to make a single diagram with multiple providers.

[discordance]

Also got flagged as spam here. Might be worth checking your SPM and DKIM config.