[toomuchtodo]

Amazon has outages all the time, hidden on their status board with a green triangle, and you still lose S3 objects once you’re operating at a large enough scale.

A quick google search for “amazon outages” lists the numerous extended outages they’ve experienced.

[Karunamon]

How many of those outages were multi-region and would have taken down a properly distributed application? How many outages and instances of lost data would the average enterprise, likely without their own datacenters, redundant power, hardware staff, etc have taken in the same period?

[toomuchtodo]

Most applications will never be architected to be “properly distributed” because of cost. Many popular web properties (Reddit) still have outages on AWS even when architected properly. Netflix still distributes content from their own CDN with their OpenConnect appliances, and only uses AWS for non streaming use cases (jedberg will correct me on both Netflix and Reddit points if I'm missing something and comes across this comment).

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/02/28/amazons-...

If my app is architected for reliability, I’ll run it on bare metal and keep the costs savings. Why pay twice by building it for cloud durability and running it on expensive cloud resources? Clearly the AWS marketing is working (“you’re just building it wrong”).

We’ll see what happens when CFOs take the reins from CTOs and CIOs and start putting cost controls in place during this recession (“why exactly are we paying so much in opex when this could be capex we can depreciate?”).

[Karunamon]

Ok, so we replace a lot of opex with a little capex and a lot more opex. You only need devops types if your business runs on a cloud provider, now you need to employ facilities, sysadmins, security, etc. It's not just the cost of the hardware we're talking about, your labor budget will necessarily increase as well.

[falcolas]

On a tangent from the sibling comments (which are spot on), colocation does exist. They handle the network drops, power, security, cooling, and you just have to ship them servers. Before AWS, this is how most businesses ran (including Amazon).

Few businesses ever get to the point where they need to run their own datacenter. And when they do, the costs would be roughly even or lower to AWS due AWS' markup (for handling those DC-related things for you, plus profit).

[toomuchtodo]

Devops types are sysadmins that cost more for mostly the same skillset (you know cloud primitives, you know infra as code, you know some python/bash or powershell depending on the underlying OS). Facilities, security, etc are usually covered by your hardware hosting provider, or colocation provider. Still a lower cost than cloud. You are still paying similar labor costs regardless if you're in the cloud or have your own metal.

Disclaimer: Previously a devops/infra guy, before that ops/networking/sysadmin, built out colo facilities/datacenters/hosting companies before cloud. Have done a lot of cost models for storage and compute, still do on the side.

[Karunamon]

So who takes care of the non-development tasks that AWS (or any cloud provider, really) is handling on the backend? Schlepping the hardware around, swapping failing drives, hardware monitoring, actually speccing out and running a datacenter, physical security, and so forth?

It's generally not the same people who are going to be at their computers running awscli (or if it is, now we get to figure in how much time they're spending on tasks that are not their primary job and how many extra of them we get to hire to maintain the same velocity, not to mention the occasional bit of firefighting you get to do when you manage your own infra)