I am sorry! As an amateur landscape photographer I actually like very much those clouds. There are a few r-word posts about people hating those clouds though, but I checked and they are nowhere near as long as you would expect a proper rant to be
I will have a look if there is something that suggests how to “make” a light theme. Thanks for the info!
Redundancy should be automatic. Raid5 for instance.
Yeah it should, but something needs to implement that. I mean, when distributed systems work redundancy is automatic, but they can also fail. We are talking about redundancy implemented via software, and software has bugs, always. I am not saying that it can’t be achieved, of course it can, but it has a cost.
You can have an oracle (or postgres, or mongo) DB with multi region redundancy, encryption and backups with a click.
I know, and if you don’t understand all that complexity you can still fuckup your postgres DB in a disastrous way. That’s the whole point of this thread. Also operators can do the same for you nowadays, but again, you need to know your systems.
Much, much simpler for a sysadmin (or an architect) than setting the simplest mysql on a VM.
Of course it is. You are paying someone else for that job. Not going to argue with that. In fact, that’s what makes it boring (which I talked about in the post).
Unless you’re in the business of configuring databases, your developers should focus on writing insurance risk code, or telco optimization, or whatever brings money.
This is a modern dogma that I simply disagree with. Building an infrastructure tailored around your needs (i.e., with all you need and nothing else) and cost effective does bring money, it does by saving costs and avoiding to spend an enormous amount of resources into renting all of that, forever, scaling with your business.
You can build a redundant system in a day like Legos, much better security and higher availability (hell, higher SLAs even) than anything a team of 5 can build in a week self-manging everything.
This is the marketing pitch. The reality is that companies still have huge teams, still have tons of incidents, still take long to deliver projects, still have security breaches, but they are spending 3, 5, 10 times as much and nothing of those money is capitalized.
I guess we fundamentally disagree, I envy you for what positive experiences you must have had!
I am specifically saying that redundancy doesn’t solve everything magically. Redundancy means coordination, more things that can also fail. A redundant system needs more care, more maintenance, more skills, more cost. If a company decides to use something more sophisticated without the corresponding effort, it’s making things worse. If a company with a 10 people department thinks that using Cloud it can have a resilient system like it could with 40 people building it, they are wrong, because they now have a system way more complex that they can handle, despite the fact that storage is replicated easily by clicking in the GUI.
No, it’s not true. A single system has less failure scenarios, because it doesn’t depend on external controllers or anything that makes the system distributed and that can fail causing a failure to your system (which may or may not be tolerated).
This is especially true from a security standpoint: complexity adds attack surface.
Simple example: a kubernetes cluster has more failure scenarios than a single node. With the node you have hardware failure, misconfiguration of the node, network failure. With a kubernetes cluster you have all that for each node (each with marginally less impact, potentially, because it depends for example on stateful storage, that if you mitigate you are introducing other failure scenarios as well), plus the fact that if the control plane goes in flames your node is useless, if the etcd data corrupts your node is useless, anything that happens with resources (a bug, a misuse of the API, etc.) can break your product. You have more failure scenarios because your product to run is dependent on more components to work at the same time. This is what it means that complexity brings fragility. Looking from the security side: an instance can be accessed only from SSH, if you are worried about compromise you have essentially one service to secure. Once you run on kubernetes you have the CI/CD system, the kubernetes API, the kubernetes supply-chain, etcd, and if you are in cloud you have plenty of cloud permissions that can indirectly grant you access to the control plane and to a console. Now you need to secure 5-6-7 entrypoints to a node.
Mind you, I am not advocating against the use of complex systems, sometimes they are necessary, but if the complexity is not fully managed and addressed, you have a more fragile system. Essentially complexity is a necessary evil to respond to some other necessities.
This is the reason why nobody would recommend to someone who needs to run a single static website to run it on Kubernetes, for example.
You say “a well designed system”, but designing well is harder the more complexity exists, obviously. Redundancy doesn’t always work, because redundancy needs coordination, needs processes that also depend on external components.
In any case, I agree that you can build a robust system within Cloud! The argument I am trying to make is that:
And mind you, everything you can do in Cloud you can also do on your own, if you invest on it.
With a lot of stuff on top!
Of course the problem is solved, but that doesn’t mean that the solution is easy. Also, distributed protocols still need to work on top of a complicated network and with real-life constraints in terms of performances (to list a few). A bug, misconfiguration, oversight and you have a problem.
Just to make an example, I remember a Kafka cluster with 5 replicas completely shitting its pants for 6h to rebalance data during a planned maintenance where one node was brought offline. It caused one of the longest outages to date with the websites which relied on it offline. Was it our fault? Was it a misconfiguration? A bug? It doesn’t matter, it’s a complex system which was implemented and probably something was missed.
Technology is implemented by people, complexity increased the chances of mistakes, not sure this can be argued.
Making it harder to identify SPOF means you might miss your SPOF, and that means having liabilities, and having anyway scenarios where your system can crash, in addition for paying quite a lot to build a resilience that you don’t achieve.
A single instance with 2 failure scenarios (disk failure and network failure) - to make an example - is not more fragile than a distributed system with 20 failure scenarios. Failure scenarios and SPOF can have compensating controls and be mitigated successfully. A complex system where these can’t be fully identified can’t have compensating control and residual risk might be much harder. So yes, a single disk can fail more likely than 3 disks at once, but this doesn’t give the whole picture.
I wish it worked like that, but I donct think it does. Connecting clouds means introducing many complex problems. Data synchronization and avoiding split-brain scenarios, a network setup way more complex, stateful storage that needs to take into account all the quirks and peculiarities of all services across all clouds, service accounts and permissions that need to be granted and segregated for all of them, and way more. You may gain resilience in some areas, but you introduce a lot more things that can fail, be misconfigured or compromised.
Plus, a complex setup makes it harder by definition to identify SPOFs, especially considering it’s very likely nobody in the workforce is going to be an expert in all the clouds in use.
To keep using your simile of the disks, a single disk with a backup might be a better solution for many people, considering you otherwise might need a RAID controller that can fail and all the knowledge to handle and manage a RAID array properly, in addition to paying 4 or 5 times the storage. Obviously this is just to make a point, I don’t actually think that RAID 5 vs JBOD introduces comparable complexity compared to what multi-cloud architecture does to single-cloud.
Complexity brings fragility. It’s not about doing the job right, is that “right” means having to deal with a level of complexity, a so high number of moving parts and configuration options, that the bar is set very high.
Also, I would argue that a large number of organizations don’t actually need the resilience that they pay a very high price for.
Thanks! I went and tried on my phone and indeed setting Firefox to light mode indeed causes that horrendous and unreadable result. I will need to figure out way, eventually, and provide an alternative light scheme.
cognito auth
But then at that point you are already vendor-locked, right? At that point, running on bare ec2 instances and taking more control in your hands (vs using even more AWS-specific services) is going to help very little, when your whole user management is now tied to a specific provider.
How do you get this? Anything that tries to force a light mode?
This is how the site is supposed to look like (there is no light/dark theme selection):
But then I would ask, what’s the point of paying 10-20x per computing unit at that point? If you just use ec2 instance, all AWS offers you is an API to manage them, is it worth the premium? Besides, you will still need to mess with a lot of other services (VPCs, SGs, etc.) anyways.
What’s the selling point in your opinion?
Thanks!
But I have to think the massive costs of cloud junk also pay a role in stuff like a calendar charging double digit annual fees for something that takes very little storage and very little computation (and you of course can’t just buy software any more).
Absolutely agree. I did not even think about this aspect, but I think you are absolutely spot on. Building something with huge costs is something that ultimately gets passed to the users in addition to the rent-seeking aspect.
I have no words for multi-cloud.
You and me both. I have to work with it and the reality is, there is nobody who actually understands the whole thing. The level of complexity (and fragility, I might add) of it all is astonishing. And all of this to mitigate some (honestly) low risk of downtime from the cloud provider. I have lobbied a little bit against at work, but ultimately it has become a marketing tool to sell to customers, so goodbye any hope of rational evaluation…
Oh yeah, I know that that’s a thing. It’s a practice not too different from the stereotypical drug dealer who gets you hooked on free drugs. In this case the idea is that if you start there, you get vendor-locked and you will have to pay that amount many times over. I understand the appeal from the company perspective, though.
What do you mean by “promotion”? A discount? Credits to get started?
How could I miss the opportunity to use this picture!
It definitely felt like that at times.
Nothing to be sorry for. I didn’t write for you nor for any particular individual, and it’s fair if you are not interested in it. I also added a table of content at the beginning, so you can jump directly to the relevant section (Technical Side) skipping the (in my opinion needed) introduction completely, if you wish. Cheers
Well, I did not mean replacement (in fact, most orgs run in clouds which uses VMs) but I meant that a lot of orgs moved from VMs as the way to slice their compute to containers/kubernetes. Often the technologies are combined, so you are right.
Thanks for the feedback, and same to @ilmagico@lemmy.world and @jg1i@lemmy.world. I fixed the configuration of the site and now the site should be readable even in light mode.