[JohnMakin]

I've maintained a large multi-cloud architecture in the past. The problem is they really hit you hard on egress costs. Of course the motivation is obvious, they want to keep you locked in to their vendor. I did like that it gave a stronger leverage in contract renewals, but that was about it. The IAC was much more complicated and required more people/areas of knowledge. So it's definitely a tradeoff.

You are correct that it's "better" though if your goal is to have as many 9's of uptime as possible.

[mads_quist]

I currently have the strong opinion that for many mid-sized orgs with 250+ engineers it can be more resilient if you go back to bare metal or at least VM only in two or three local date centers. Yes, you need to know that they do their job well. But it will probably also reduce a lot of devops overhead...

[dilyevsky]

There are multiple companies that help you with that by running tunnels via Direct Interconnect (Direct Connect in AWS) so that you "only" pay 2c/G egressing data out of VPC via this tunnel

[JohnMakin]

yes, direct connect I have quite a bit of experience with. The costs add up in weird ways. if you want to spend on it though, multi cloud is extremely resilient, and my preferred architecture if money and talent are no object.

[dilyevsky]

Totally. You need some serious volume to make it worth it because they charge you like $30/hr per 10g allocation iirc