The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
We have the same tradition in Norway: This piece has been broadcast every Dec. 23rd since 1980.
The history books tell that in 1992, by a mistake the play started 15 minutes earlier than announced. People who sat down to watch it at the announced time, discovering that it was already over, made furious phone calls to the broadcaster - there were so many complaints that it was set up for a rerun immediately after the last newscast of the night.
Scale-up and scale-out your DB are both options in Azure - the technicality behind it should not bother you, if you are not the maintainer...
As for using Azure... A small bedtime story... We started to use Azure to build or Angular application on every pull request on the Git... We close it every evening and start every morning, as we do not want to pay for hours when noone uses it...
It works perfectly... Except that one day - just after Corona-virus boosted the internet-usage - when we tried to start the machine Azure failed to do so because lack of resources... And that's to prove you that the cloud is only a glorified (partially rightly) hosting plan, that can go very wrong...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
The db issue you point out with cloud is a main reason micro services have become popular. Each micro service generally has its own db. Designing micro services for an application requires some of the same skills as partitioning a db...you have to break them up such that you minimize the number of db updates required to get your micro services into a consistent state. It can become quite complex and if not done well, can end up in a tangled db mess.
Fortunately, I write internal apps, and have only a few thousand users, so have not had to go the micro service route.
We have been using Azure for almost 5 years to host a web-based timeclock system for a client. It consists of 2 web apps and 1 database, all azure services. The decision to 'cloudify' instead of self-host (which we normally do) was based on the nature of the application with the most weight on availability. About two years ago, we added another client for the same system/setup. They weren't as demanding as the original client so I was able to keep them on the free plan with a minimum S0 database.
In hindsight, it would have been better and cheaper to have created an Azure VM, hooked it up to a domain name, and hosted the apps from it with the database(s) local. In fact, before the CV hit, I had already scheduled a migration to the new host so that I can save around $100 a month. In addition, the apps perform better and it opens up a lot more options when you have complete control of the hosting environment.
The free plans are nice but have limitations. Our biggest pain was finding a reporting tool that allowed printing and exporting in the Azure environment. The quick and dirty way (still being used) was to host the ssrs reports (in anonymous mode) on our webserver and hook them to the azure sql databases...slow, but it works. I'm looking forward to removing that link from the process and use a proper reporting tool.
As for scaling, once I have everything running on the VM, if I need more horsepower (not likely) then I can bump it up to the next paid level. (currently costing me around 70 usd/month and more than adequate for what I'm doing now) btw, I'm renting a windows server 2016 datacenter with a moderate 8GB of ram. Obviously, you can save money if you go the 'nix route.
since the DB is read/write you can't spawn multiple copy of it on multiple server
since this one server is used for all your queries, you can't really scale your website
I agree. These two statements contradict each other. I will go further and say that all client/server architectures suffer the same inherent flaw of not being scalable. Can you make them "scale"? Yes, but it is also true that anything can fly if you give it enough power. Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if Azure one day didn't have enough "power"? Hint: not good. Hint2: study the shipping giant Maersk NotPetya hack in Andy Greenberg's book "Sandworm" chapters 20-28. Hint3: think pandemic, only on 'cloudy thing' computers. Hint4: again, not good.
The cloud isn't magic. Any of your alarmist scenarios apply to in house hosting also. Except of course that you must then either have already hired and have been paying your in house experts for years to deal with that or do a mad emergency scramble to find a consultant when your servers are taken out. A full service hosting, such as a cloud server, but true of any full service hosting company already has those experts.
I see your point and agree. However, I don't think I'm being too alarmist. I don't think the Maersk concern would think I am being too alarmist either. But your point still stands. My bias comes from having developed a decentralized software framework that has the potential of solving the scalability and resiliency issues centralized client/server architectures chronically suffer from. From that viewpoint, clouds look very risky indeed and again, the OPs original statements still stand. Decentralized computing resolves the OP's truth statements.
My preliminary calculations are that the cloud costs the same as if we were to buy all new servers every year. The benefits are automatic scaling as needed, and lack of need to maintain hardware. A drawback is controlling costs. With Amazon, it was impossible. With Azure, it's better, but still not good.
Using the cloud for any critical corporate data is a fools' errand. Though the vendors will tell you of their great security, nothing is truly secure on the web. And it is made even more insecure by having centralized storage locations such as the Cloud that can host the data from multiple companies all in a single facility or several such facilities.
Cloud hosting has been shown to be quite vulnerable to breaches and security specialists have been wary about this type of data storage for quite some time.
Cloud hosting marketing is directed at reducing costs, not increasing a company's security. And since so many companies have been shown to not really care all that much about strict security, the Cloud hosting plans make a very tempting alternative to paying additional employees to maintain their own internal storage services along with the corresponding hardware costs.
Think about it. If a company deems it worthwhile, it probably isn't...
Sr. Software Engineer
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
Last Visit: 8-Aug-20 0:02 Last Update: 8-Aug-20 0:02