I previously wrote a blog post Why Clusters Usually Don’t Work [2] and I believe that all the points there are valid today – and possibly exacerbated by clusters getting less direct use as clustering is increasingly being done by hyperscale providers.
Take a basic need, a MySQL or PostgreSQL database for example. You want it to run and basically do the job and to have good recovery options. You could set it up locally, run backups, test the backups, have a recovery plan for failures, maybe have a hot-spare server if it’s really important, have tests for backups and hot-spare server, etc. Then you could have documentation for this so if the person who set it up isn’t available when there’s a problem they will be able to find out what to do. But the hyperscale option is to just select a database in your provider and have all this just work. If the person who set it up isn’t available for recovery in the event of failure the company can just put out a job advert for “person with experience on cloud company X” and have them just immediately go to work on it.
I don’t like hyperscale providers as they are all monopolistic companies that do anti-competitive actions. Google should be broken up, Android development and the Play Store should be separated from Gmail etc which should be separated from search and adverts, and all of them should be separated from the GCP cloud service. Amazon should be broken up, running the Amazon store should be separated from selling items on the store, which should be separated from running a video on demand platform, and all of them should be separated from the AWS cloud. Microsoft should be broken up, OS development should be separated from application development all of that should be separated from cloud services (Teams and Office 365), and everything else should be separate from the Azure cloud system.
But the cloud providers offer real benefits at small scale. Running a MySQL or PostgreSQL database for local services is easy, it’s a simple apt command to install it and then it basically works. Doing backup and recovery isn’t so easy. One could say “just hire competent people” but if you do hire competent people do you want them running MySQL databases etc or have them just click on the “create mysql database” option on a cloud control panel and then move on to more important things?
The FreedomBox project is a great project for installing and managing home/personal services [3]. But it’s not about running things like database servers, it’s for a high level running mail servers and other things for the user not for the developer.
The Debian packaging of Open Stack looks interesting [4], it’s a complete setup for running your own hyper scale cloud service. For medium and large organisations running Open Stack could be a good approach. But for small organisations it’s cheaper and easier to just use a cloud service to run things.
The issue of when to run things in-house and when to put them in the cloud is very complex. I think that if the organisation is going to spend less money on cloud services than on the salary of one sysadmin then it’s probably best to have things in the cloud. When cloud costs start to exceed the salary of one person who manages systems then having them spend the extra time and effort to run things locally starts making more sense. There is also an opportunity cost in having a good sysadmin work on the backups for all the different systems instead of letting the cloud provider just do it. Another possibility of course is to run things in-house on low end hardware and just deal with the occasional downtime to save money. Knowingly choosing less reliability to save money can be quite reasonable as long as you have considered the options and all the responsible people are involved in the discussion.
The one situation that I strongly oppose is having hyper scale services setup by people who don’t understand them. Running a database server on a cloud service because you don’t want to spend the time managing it is a reasonable choice in many situations. Running a database server on a cloud service because you don’t understand how to setup a database server is never a good choice. While the cloud services are quite resilient there are still ways of breaking the overall system if you don’t understand it. Also while it is quite possible for someone to know how to develop for databases including avoiding SQL injection etc but be unable to setup a database server that’s probably not going to be common, probably if someone can’t set it up (a generally easy task) then they can’t do the hard tasks of making it secure.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.