Sorry no, I quit teaching at that uni and don't keep contact with the
cohort now.
But a little more info I remember:
It arose under a project suggestion three or four students took me up
on, and that was "Long term resilience".
The obvious antecedent being "If Google goes down tomorrow....."
"De-clouding" was in the title. And the conclusions, perhaps
predictably, were that hybrid systems were the sweet spot across a
range of business types, with no panaceas, or even decent maxima to be
found in fully on-prem or total cloud.
The students artifact IIRC was a "matrix" (a graph theoretical model)
of the edge-costs for traversing well modular systems into different
states - something that could be used to plan a "repatriation"
FWIW the student was African and we had a good laugh at the racist
undertones of that language and it's subtle implications about
"Empires".
Hybrid is interesting because once you set a system up for hybrid it tends to drive down costs without increasing cloud usage much in my experience.
When you can spin up cloud instances, that capability in itself means you can justify loading individual servers closer to 100%. Couple that with managed / leased capacity in data centres rather than "true" on prem, and managed providers often delivering many server models very rapidly, and in most hybrid setups I've worked on, we've ended up using the ability to spin up cloud instances very little, while slowing down the rate of growth of new server capacity overall.
So I agree, they're the sweet spot, but in terms of dollars spent my hunch is that most people deploying them will find their spend dominated by "more fixed" servers, ranging from own/leased servers via managed hosting depending on local power and real estate costs (last placed I ran a physical hosting facility, what finally tipped it towards managed hosting for us was that the price of land grew to a point that empty rack space near us vs. at the managed hosting provider we chose was so much more expensive that the difference paid for our servers).
nonrandomstring|2 years ago
But a little more info I remember:
It arose under a project suggestion three or four students took me up on, and that was "Long term resilience".
The obvious antecedent being "If Google goes down tomorrow....."
"De-clouding" was in the title. And the conclusions, perhaps predictably, were that hybrid systems were the sweet spot across a range of business types, with no panaceas, or even decent maxima to be found in fully on-prem or total cloud.
The students artifact IIRC was a "matrix" (a graph theoretical model) of the edge-costs for traversing well modular systems into different states - something that could be used to plan a "repatriation"
FWIW the student was African and we had a good laugh at the racist undertones of that language and it's subtle implications about "Empires".
vidarh|2 years ago
When you can spin up cloud instances, that capability in itself means you can justify loading individual servers closer to 100%. Couple that with managed / leased capacity in data centres rather than "true" on prem, and managed providers often delivering many server models very rapidly, and in most hybrid setups I've worked on, we've ended up using the ability to spin up cloud instances very little, while slowing down the rate of growth of new server capacity overall.
So I agree, they're the sweet spot, but in terms of dollars spent my hunch is that most people deploying them will find their spend dominated by "more fixed" servers, ranging from own/leased servers via managed hosting depending on local power and real estate costs (last placed I ran a physical hosting facility, what finally tipped it towards managed hosting for us was that the price of land grew to a point that empty rack space near us vs. at the managed hosting provider we chose was so much more expensive that the difference paid for our servers).