←back to thread

242 points panrobo | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.223s | source
Show context
WaitWaitWha ◴[] No.42055490[source]
This is partially the result of cloud providers and partially business leadership. They, for whatever reason, insufficiently educated their clients on migration requirements. Lift & shift from on-premises to cloud only work for emergency. The shifted resources must be converted to cloud stack, or the cost will be multiples of on-prem costs. Business leadership was (is?) ignoring IT teams screaming of the problem with lift & shift.

Now, businesses shifting back to on-prem because they are still uneducated on how to make cloud useful. They will just shift all non-core activities to XaaS vendors, reducing their own cloud managed solutions.

Source: dealing with multiple non-software, tech firms that are doing just that, shifting own things back to on-prem, non-core resources to XaaS.

replies(1): >>42057868 #
Agingcoder ◴[] No.42057868[source]
I keep reading ´ Lift and shift is bad ‘ on HN - what is the opposite of lift and shift ? ( ´cloud native ´ does not mean much to me). Is it that instead of oracle running on a rented vm you use whatever db your cloud provider is selling you, you move your monolith to a service oriented architecture running in k8s, etc ?
replies(3): >>42058034 #>>42061244 #>>42066588 #
1. jedberg ◴[] No.42066588[source]
The opposite of lift and shift is rearchitecting for auto-scaling. Pretty much every price advantage comes from using the fact that the cloud provider absorbs the cost of idle resources instead of you.

So you either adopt serverless patterns (the kind of serverless that means scale to zero and pay nothing when you do) or you adopt auto-scaling, where you shut down instances when traffic is lower, to minimize idle time. Or both.