Re:Creative Cloud outage leaves Adobe users unable to work
by Silhouette on Friday May 16, 2014 @10:07AM
(#7755553)
Sure you can self-host, but who do you trust more: some guy on your team who has other things to do, or a team that does only that? And a team whose livelyhood depends on uptime/data protection.
I think this is the fundamental fallacy that SaaS companies are promoting.
Objectively, the answer is quite obvious in my experience: self-hosted systems are much more reliable than external ones, as soon as you have a reasonably competent person to run them and a second person with basic competence who can take over in an emergency if the first person is not around.
For a start, one of the most consistently unreliable things in many business environments I've worked in was the Internet connection. Workmen cut through underground cables while they're building the new office block down the road. Someone at your ISP accidentally disconnects you while they're in the cabinet hooking up their new customer. Someone moves in across the street with a badly configured wireless router and screws up the wireless frequency for everyone until the regulatory agency gets someone on-site to track down the problem and make them fix their router a week later. Relying on any Internet-based service for something you need full-time adds one more potential point of failure with a demonstrable risk that it will actually fail from time to time.
That is quite separate to the unfavourable track record of many large cloud/SaaS/PaaS companies, including almost all of the big names, compared to running systems in-house. I was genuinely surprised by some of the comments when GitHub was down the other day, where some people were complaining about not even being able to push changes to production because they were so entangled in dependencies on GH and related on-line services like CI systems that they couldn't extricate themselves.
I think this is the fundamental fallacy that SaaS companies are promoting.
Objectively, the answer is quite obvious in my experience: self-hosted systems are much more reliable than external ones, as soon as you have a reasonably competent person to run them and a second person with basic competence who can take over in an emergency if the first person is not around.
For a start, one of the most consistently unreliable things in many business environments I've worked in was the Internet connection. Workmen cut through underground cables while they're building the new office block down the road. Someone at your ISP accidentally disconnects you while they're in the cabinet hooking up their new customer. Someone moves in across the street with a badly configured wireless router and screws up the wireless frequency for everyone until the regulatory agency gets someone on-site to track down the problem and make them fix their router a week later. Relying on any Internet-based service for something you need full-time adds one more potential point of failure with a demonstrable risk that it will actually fail from time to time.
That is quite separate to the unfavourable track record of many large cloud/SaaS/PaaS companies, including almost all of the big names, compared to running systems in-house. I was genuinely surprised by some of the comments when GitHub was down the other day, where some people were complaining about not even being able to push changes to production because they were so entangled in dependencies on GH and related on-line services like CI systems that they couldn't extricate themselves.