Hacker News Reader

Comment by regularfry | Hacker News Reader

For us, it's less that I want to run things on more than one cloud at a time. It's that the next time there's a shuffling of the deck-chairs 5 levels above my pay grade and we end up under someone who says "Oceania Web Services is much better than the Eurasia Cloud Platform! We must move everything at once!" it's not a 3 year migration project (by which time, guess what, Eurasia is mysteriously better than Oceania again).

View on HN

In my understanding the parent talks about having a system run across several clouds at the same time. Thats sounds like madness indeed

On another hand, I agreee whole-heartedly that having cross-clound compatiable application is actually quite sane.

Even if you're not concerned with real-time redundancy, running across multiple clouds is the only way to ensure that a complex system is truly multi-cloud capable.

If the system is theoretically multi-cloud but only runs on one in practice, it will eventually drift into a state of dependence on that specific environment, even by accident.

Consider yourself lucky if "being better" is the only reason to initiate a multiyear cloud migration project. We are doing one at the moment where everything is going to be objectively worse with the new provider.

I can probably do multi-cloud with Oceania Web Services and Eurasia Cloud Platform, and still end up spending less money *and* having fewer issues, than using this provider.

But your point still stands. Multi-cloud is the way to go.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com