@geerlingguy BuT sCaLaBiLiTy!!11

as long as people would commit to subscription-paywalled based services( this is: recurrent payment for access to the same service) that long cloud will be promoted as THE way to go.

@geerlingguy I understand the broader point you’re making, but using a post where the local infra was the component that failed is a bad example. At least it was a stateless resource (Internet connectivity) that could have easily been replicated.

@geerlingguy cue in people complaining that cloud can better be made nuclear-proof(*).
And thus completely miss the point of the hospital story.

(*): for some very weird corner cases which haven't actually been really tested.

@geerlingguy Agreed. Biz I managed for 3 years was all on-prem with redundancy, a local spares stock and 2 or 4 hr call-out for critical outages not fixable from spares. Cost was reasonable. Our only major outage was an HP battery-backed cache controller that took itself offline due to a spurious cache confidence error. We had the board swapped and the server + storage array back online in 12 mins. My successor moved many systems into Cloud and suffered the uptime and cost consequences.

@geerlingguy "The Cloud" is just someone else's computer. There is no reason your systems can't be as resilient, all a matter of how much effort and money you're willing to put into it.

@geerlingguy

> I think we have a decade of proof that statement is false

In some cases, very literal proof, as in a decade of uptime on a local server.