[Roark66]

Anyone who thinks one cloud provider will provide them full resilience is fooling themselves. You need multicloud for true high availability.

But then you want to use the same stack across providers and all the proprietary technologies (even hidden from you with things like terraform) are suddenly loosing their luster.

[hnlmorg]

I don’t think any actually believes that.

What people usually think is “resilience up to a reasonable level of risk and cost”.

Multi-cloud is simply isn’t cost beneficial for 99.9% of problems.

And for a lot of businesses who talk about risk, saying “we followed AWS best practices but AWS went down” is an acceptable answer to the question of liability.

If you are in a position where AWS going down is a reasonable risk, then you’re already in a specialised enough domain to have engineers who understand how to deliver HA across different vendors.

[Roark66]

Depends on the product. I'd never guarantee 3 nines (a bit under 9h of downtime per year) to my customers of any product with moderate complexity without multicloud(except for a cloud provider issues that affect entire region).

On the subject of cost. Multicloud doesn't have to be expensive, but it requires foresight during the initial design not to lock yourself up in proprietary tech.

Things such as AWS cognito, lambda elastic beanstalk, SQS can make it completely uneconomical to do multicloud.

But let's say you run roughly equivalent services (load balances, DNS, vms, containers for example under GKE, s3 compatible object storage, etc) it doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg.

[doublerabbit]

I jest, Anyone who thinks multicloud will provide them full resilience is fooling themselves. You need colocated hardware for true high availability.