[ckdarby]

Being on AWS, Azure or GPC isn't about the costs being pressured from another department at all.

The cost reflects the premium for integration into the other services.

It is after first employees bounce or the company outgrows that hustle hack everything together mentally that consultants like myself get hired and want to sob that some employee decided to board to OVH as a small startup especially if it is growing.

Every time I've dealt with this it is a disaster or things hanging together by a thread. Hanging together by a thread have sort of gotten better with kubernetes mostly keeping everything running just by turning anything back on when it dies or crashes. The thing is that only until last year did OVH offer managed k8s, those poor startups that will suffer from these choices.

OVH has it's place to be considered:

+40 engineering companies

High out going bandwidth (CDN, video streaming, etc.)

IO Latency requirements

Large enough scale of anything where the cost of AWS egress bandwidth is too costly

[Radim]

Your lack of punctuation and odd syntax makes me wonder, but if I understood your post correctly, you claim that building with AWS is somehow safer / more robust / more future proof than building with OVH? A technical judgement?

If so, I vehemently disagree. I've been a consultant for 10+ years too and seen 50+ companies from the inside, from startups to behemoths – including AWS itself.

Companies running a tight ship around resources were generally technically superior to those using AWS. "Hanging together by a thread" indeed, playing the AWS bingo of "use a flaky soup of 3-letter-acronym-services to cover technical inaptitude".

AFAIR the AWS versions of Spark and Elasticsearch were abysmal to the point of being unworkable. At least two years ago, maybe it's better now.