←back to thread

So you want to build your own data center

(blog.railway.com)
596 points dban | 1 comments | 17 Jan 25 20:41 UTC | HN request time: 0.524s | source
Show context
motoboi ◴[18 Jan 25 04:21 UTC] No.42745808[source]▶
I’m my experience and based on writeups like this: Google hates having customers.

Someone decided they have to have a public cloud, so they did it, but they want to keep clients away with a 3 meter pole.

My AWS account manager is someone I am 100% certain would roll in the mud with me if necessary. Would sleep in the floor with us if we asked in a crisis.

Our Google cloud representatives make me sad because I can see that they are even less loved and supported by Google than us. It’s sad seeing someone trying to convince their company to sell and actually do a good job providing service. It’s like they are setup to fail.

Microsoft guys are just bulletproof and excel in selling, providing a good service and squeezing all your money out of your pockets and you are mortally convinced it’s for your own good. Also have a very strange cloud… thing.

As for the railway company going metal, well, I have some 15 years of experience with it. I’ll never, NEVER, EVER return to it. It’s just not worth it. But I guess you’ll have to discover it by yourselves. This is the way.

You soon discover what in freaking world is Google having so much trouble with. Just make sure you really really love and really really want to sell service to people, instead of building borgs and artificial brains and you’ll do 100x better.

replies(8): >>42748117 #>>42749527 #>>42752503 #>>42752843 #>>42752941 #>>42753977 #>>42757200 #>>42763366 #
motorest ◴[18 Jan 25 13:19 UTC] No.42748117[source]▶
> Microsoft (...) have a very strange cloud… thing.

Risking a going off on a tangent, this is something I rarely see discussed but is perhaps one of the main problems with Azure. The whole cloud service feels like something someone oblivious to cloud computing would design if all they knew was renting bare metal servers. It's cloud computing in a way that completely defeats the whole concept of cloud computing.

replies(2): >>42749531 #>>42751168 #
oneplane ◴[18 Jan 25 20:28 UTC] No.42751168[source]▶
Same feeling here. It's like they wanted a way to "play datacenter in the browser", but then asked 30 different teams to do it on their own, and only have them come together after they are all done to put the pieces together.

Then find out it's not good at all and go "oh well, I guess we'll polish it over in the UI" (not knowing that no serious scale works with a UI).

If I can't have AWS I'll make do with GCP. But if someone wants to go full Azure, I'll find work elsewhere. Screw that. Life is too short to work with bad technology.

replies(2): >>42751457 #>>42764020 #
1. kjs3 ◴[20 Jan 25 01:31 UTC] No.42764020[source]▶
I don't think that's it. I think Microsoft wanted a way to migrate already Microsoft workloads to something they could more aggressively bill by the GB or second or user or whatever revenue extraction metric you're down with. Basically, O365 extended to the entire M$ ecosystem. And for that it seems...er...ok. We've migrated a couple of dozen major M$ workloads from on-prem reasonably easily, and a bunch of little ones. Lots of skillsets transferred easily...I vividly recall talking a really fine SQLServer admin off the ledge when the "move to cloud" mandate came out who's now like "I had to learn a few new things, but it's pretty much like what I was doing before". Big win.

But then everyone said "a cloud should do X and Y and Z", and they try to bolt X/Y/Z on to the side with various levels of success. And now all the app owners who aren't native M$ have declared Azure not fit for purpose and picked up the torches and pitchforks. So we're going to support AWS, too.