| > No point in investing in S3 and then doing it again yourself. I mean that's just obviously wrong, though. There is a point. > Either you don't trust the cloud and you can run NAS or equivalent (with s3 APIs easily today) much cheaper or trust them to keep your data safe and available. What if you trust the cloud 90%, and you trust yourself 90%, and you think it's likely that the failure cases between the two are likely to be independent? Then it seems like the smart decision would be to do both. Your position is basically arguing that redundant systems are never necessary, because "either you trust A or you trust B, why do both?" If it's absolutely critical that you don't suffer a particular failure, then having redundant systems is very wise. |
You can argue that you protect against different threats than AWS does . So far I have not seen a meaningful argument of threats a on Prem protects differently than the cloud that you need both.
Say for example your solution is to put all your data backups on the moon then it makes sense to do both, AWS does not protect against threat to planet wide issues.
However if you are both protecting against exact same risks having just provider redundancy only protects against events like AWS goes down for days /months or goes bankrupt.
All business decisions have some risk , provider redundancy does not seem a risk to mitigate for the cost it would mean for most businesses I have seen.
Even Amazon.com or Google apps host on their own cloud and not use multi cloud after all, their regular businesses are much bigger than their cloud biz , they would still risk those to stick to their cloud/services only.