Of course, cloud is overpriced, slow, and suffers from noisy neighbors. And keeping things running in the cloud is about the same amount of work as keeping it running on bare-metal. But for customer-visible things, I want to use cloud so that someone else has to get up in the middle of the night when apache crashes.
Sleeping peacefully makes it worth for me to pay $5,000 monthly to Heroku when 2-3x $100 bare metal servers would do. Plus I can cheaply insure against supplier negligence, whereas insuring against employee negligence would be much more expensive.
I wonder how you would solve that with a few physical server.
They won't. I think a lot of these people are skeptical of cloud computing have never worked on a product that serves to millions of users every hour and get smashed during rush hours. To me, "why not just get bunch of bare metal computers" is laughable.
That's weird. I run a couple of servers myself, recently installed Asterisk on one of them and in under a minute it was under a constant barrage of automated scanners.
Too bad that it never got implemented in DNS to specify the ports there (e.g. example.com would have an A record for the IP address and another record for the port)...
I recently bought a DELL r710 just for fun and was pleasantly surprised how even days after spinning up a bunch of VMs, I don't have a 30gb logfile for all the failed attempts at getting into my instance (this was my experience recently with 2 cloud providers!)
It'll be interesting to see how the mkt reacts when you have a "first-of-its-kind" massive, massive security breach that affect popular "pure play" internet companies hosted on top of the mythical "cloud."
Seriously, $READER, look at your cloud computing-dependent startup, and calculate egress costs for your storage, as if you HAD to stop using cloud tomorrow. How much does it cost you? How could you adapt? It's designed to keep you dependent on 3rd parties... Idk, IMO it is really not great.