|
|
|
|
|
|
by manquer
1646 days ago
|
|
|
My point is if your redundancy is better than AWS then why pay for them ? If it not they why invest in your own?. 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. |
|
|
This is a really confusing question. Redundancy requires more than 1 option. It's not about it being better than AWS, it's that in order to have it you need something besides just AWS. AWS may provide redundant drives, but they don't provide a redundant AWS. AWS can protect against many things, but it cannot protect against AWS being unavailable.