• Dempf@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I see a lot of comments in here against the cloud and saying that on-prem is better. My question is, why would on-prem uptime would be any better? Or is it more about a loss of control in moving to the cloud?

    • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      On-prem allows you 100% control on the downtime. You build internal trust by deciding when to upgrade, availability of hot swap, rollback, etc.

      Cloud is just trust and it’s out of your control if they break that trust.

      • Dashi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        “Allows you to control the downtime”

        *unless your company infrastructure was designed by a 2 year old, you don’t have infrastructure admins that believe is still the wild wild west, and your Security team knows how to manage it’s av and doesn’t block the file servers

        • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          All of that can be equally true for cloud infrastructure. There is argument that the cloud company is more incentivizing to use 2 year olds to save labor costs.

          In the cloud admin world, no one knows you’re a toddler.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      The problem with cloud services is that you put all your eggs in one basket. Even if outages are less frequent, impacting more people at a time isn’t good. If most people use a handful of centralized services, those services become a larger target for hacking and DOS attacks.

      That’s why I like on-prem, generally speaking. It localizes the risk and prevents a cascading effect.