Tag: Cloud Computing

For the last few years, we’ve seen no shortage of cloud migration stories and felt pressure from management who wanted to migrate our systems to the cloud. It seems that almost everyone I speak to has a story of having to move a system out of their owned or leased data center into a public cloud from some vendor. A lot of this is the movement of VMs from one place to another, which has me scratching my head. If we’re just running VMs, surely we can do this cheaper in our own data center.

Perhaps, though there are a lot of costs to setting up or running a data center, and it’s not easy getting a system in place that allows a bit of self-service for our customers. Especially while ensuring that images used are properly patched and secured, while ensuring lots of easy connectivity to storage that can be reconfigured easily. It might not be worth the effort for a few dozen VMs, but if you have hundreds of systems, maybe it is.

Maybe it’s happening. I keep seeing stories about repatriation from the cloud. I also caught the global data center trend report, which shows a lot of growth in the data center world. Vacancy rates are low and there is continued demand for building more data centers. Some of this is due to public cloud providers, some is from AI companies who need lots of power and GPUs, and some is from private companies looking to collocate their systems.

The world is becoming more and more dependent lots of servers in data centers. I expect that we will continue to see more data centers built, but I expect fewer and fewer private, corporate data centers. More than likely all of us will use someone else’s data center, even if we choose to own the computing systems. Even Basecamp, which left the cloud, is using a collocation facility for machines, which means they are using a facility owned by another organization and shared with other clients. However, they own the servers they use, which are just located in someone else’s data center.

If any of you have private data centers, my guess is most of those will slowly fade away over time. The cost of running them privately will exceed that of what vendors will charge. Data center vendors can spread the cost of buildings, power, networking, cooling, etc. across multiple clients, often hundreds or thousands. While you might not be in the cloud, and you may still own your own computers, you’ll likely store and connect them in someone else’s data center.

That means that most of us will need to be comfortable with limits on the hardware deployed and amount of upgrades available. In the cloud you’re limited to what vendors provide. In our own collation spaces, it might be what our core IT group makes available. I still expect database servers to be among the largest machines available, but there will still be limits to what most of us can provision. After all, most IT groups still want some standard configurations shared by most of their servers. That might be an interesting trade-off for some of us as the cloud might be more or less preferable in certain situations.

Steve Jones

Listen to the podcast at Libsyn, Spotify, or iTunes.

Note, podcasts are only available for a limited time online.

The cloud has been a controversial concept for much of its existence. While the idea has been around for many decades, AWS started selling IT services in 2006, with Azure following suit in 2008. Since then, the use of cloud services has grown tremendously. While some applications and organizations have embraced the idea from the beginning. I found many of you at SQL Server Central were very hesitant at first. I guess some of you are still skeptical about the value of a production database in a public cloud.

From the beginning, I’ve felt that cloud computing has a place in the world, but in a way that is more appropriate for some situations than others. In terms of database (and maybe compute services), if you have a very well-known and predictable workload, the cloud can be very expensive. It might still be a good choice, but I think it often isn’t. If you have a variable or growing workload, then the cloud might serve you better than trying to keep up with new hardware in your own data center.

Bluesky has had a tremendous amount of growth since its founding. Twitter invested in this as a distributed project and when Elon Musk purchased the site, many users moved away. A lot of them went to Bluesky, which had to deal with a quickly changing workload. They started in AWS, but eventually decided to move to an on-premises setup.

Why? One would think their continued growth would mean AWS (or another cloud) would be a natural fit. However, they hired someone that provided an analysis showing they could invest in their own hardware, overprovision what they needed for growth, and keep up with the demands as they had developed a fairly accurate method of forecasting future needs. The savings in purchasing their own hardware allowed them to buy more than they needed and handle short-term spikes.

To be clear, this doesn’t mean the cloud is worse for most or even many organizations. Bluesky knows they need to continue to invest in hardware, and they are prepared to keep adding resources. They also architected a distributed system that still allows them to scale into AWS if needed in the short term. I don’t know many organizations that would prioritize those things alongside the rest of their business. Most of us do a poor job of forecasting load. Even if we do, often the difficulties of purchasing new resources mean that we can struggle to meet increased demands.

The companies that have moved to the cloud with success, and those that have left the cloud with success, are those that measure, monitor, and make appropriate decisions based on operational data, not opinions and feelings. They aren’t afraid to make a decision one way or the other, choosing what’s best for the organization, not what someone wants to do or thinks will be better.

The cloud might be better for you, or it might be worse, but you ought to have a way to measure and analyze the options. You also need a talented staff that isn’t afraid to try new things and adapt their architecture to take advantage of modern hardware and software. Too many of us aren’t as flexible as Bluesky and might not have the success they have, in or out of the cloud.

Steve Jones

Listen to the podcast at Libsyn, Spotify, or iTunes.

Note, podcasts are only available for a limited time online.

In the last few months, I’ve been traveling around at a few of the Redgate Summits (one more in NYC coming) running panels on cloud journeys. I’ve had industry experts, both technical and managerial, discussing their approaches and journeys with advice and caveats for others. It can often be more than just migrating systems, so a lot of people have started to talk about cloud transformation.

However, in some cases, this is just a migration. A lot of companies just lift-and-shift their databases into the cloud, along with various other services. While this is a quick way to get into the cloud, it isn’t much of a transformation. If you review and right-size the resources you’ve provisioned, maybe there is a bit of a transformation, but not a lot.

Instead, the idea recommended by most vendors and consultants is to transform your software to work in the cloud. This might be moving to containers, to using more cloud-native services, or re-architecting your software to embrace to way cloud vendors provide services. Often this is a major project, though it can provide advantages over time with cost savings, more efficient code, and better-trained developers.

That last one is key, as a lot of the advantages of the cloud require your developers to write better code and re-think how they interact with data services. Code costs money, and poor code costs more money. This is also true on-premises, but it’s more true (and more visible) in the cloud.

I was surprised at how many companies had embraced the cloud and how many had seen savings. I met quite a few companies that had moved their databases (including large enterprises) 100% into the cloud. They’ve seen savings, but they also rigorously audit resources and the provisioned sizes.

The cloud isn’t for every organization, and not for all workloads. There are more than a few companies that have struggled to achieve the results they want in the cloud, be these performance or cost measures. I suspect some organizations will never move fully to the cloud, and may never move databases. However, it is a tool that we technical people ought to understand and learn why we recommend for or against a move.

Steve Jones

Listen to the podcast at Libsyn, Spotify, or iTunes.

Note, podcasts are only available for a limited time online.