The TCO of the Cloud

SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.

Popular Topics

Home

Members

Calendar

Who's On

Home » SQLServerCentral.com » Editorials » The TCO of the Cloud

The TCO of the Cloud

Rate Topic

Display Mode

Topic Options

Author

Message

Steve Jones - SSC Editor

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 10:13 PM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 1:14 AM
Points: 31,433, Visits: 13,746

Comments posted to this topic are about the item The TCO of the Cloud

Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help

Post #1303832

IceDread

Posted Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:25 AM

SSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, November 16, 2012 3:47 AM
Points: 290, Visits: 988

I still prefer the idea of a private cloud inside a company where database services are provided, not database instances.

There it is, I agree. At least for large enough companies where it makes sense.
I still believe cloud services are way to limited for now, if you look at more than only the database part. Which makes migrating from and to a huge issue.

Renting an ordinary virtualized server is so much easier for existing systems if you dont want to handle hardware yourself, in my view.

Post #1304053

MVDBA

Posted Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:31 AM

SSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:15 AM
Points: 2,261, Visits: 758

We run a system that is a hybrid.

local hardware for our internal needs, cloud hosted servers for computational grunt and cloud services (such as ddb, EMR and SQS) for all of the simple stuff.

it works well for us - you just have to figure out which one is best for that component of your solution - nobody says you have to "JUST" use one type of solution

MVDBA

Post #1304058

djackson 22568

Posted Tuesday, May 22, 2012 2:30 PM

Old Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 8:56 AM
Points: 310, Visits: 470

From what I have seen, external cloud increases costs. Every quote we have received has been overly expensive. Add to that the costs associated with increased risk - I don't see this being feasible as often as it is being pushed.

I don't consider internal to be a cloud.

We have implemented some systems which are hosted, but in most cases that was the only option the vendor offered. Having some third party host our servers and applications hasn't proven valuable.

Dave

Post #1304520

Jayanth_Kurup

Posted Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:16 PM

SSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 6:43 AM
Points: 1,785, Visits: 1,008

while i dont recommend MS PaaS to any of my clients esp those with critical projects. I think a lot of small companies I work with are benefiting from Iaas as provided by amazon ,rackspace etc.

I think there is a strong argument for big companies to migrate thier dev and test environments to the cloud ( vs virtualization) and continue to host the prod systems on in house infra.

Jayanth Kurup

Post #1304605

niall.baird

Posted Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:54 PM

SSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:59 AM
Points: 204, Visits: 457

What's the difference between "the cloud" and a data centre providing hosting? A lot of companies that I've worked with over the years have been quite happy to move their data/processing operations out to a 3rd party data centre, but seem to resist moving operations to "the cloud". As far as I can determine, "the cloud" is just a large data centre (or centres) run by amazon/MS/Google.

That being said, the latest MS offering for SQL Azure seems like quite a nice "fit" for those businesses (or lines of business) that need to upgrade their MS Access databases to something more substantial.

Post #1304631

ankitb

Posted Tuesday, May 22, 2012 9:41 PM

Forum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, June 08, 2012 1:18 PM
Points: 7, Visits: 46

Folks on this thread would benefit by looking into ScaleGrid (http://www.scalegrid.net).

It seems like a MS SQL as a Service solution for in house virtualization solutions.

Post #1304668

Steve Jones - SSC Editor

Posted Wednesday, May 23, 2012 9:32 AM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 1:14 AM
Points: 31,433, Visits: 13,746

niall.baird (5/22/2012)

No difference. Amazon EC2 is no different than a colocation facility, other than you don't need to buy the hardware. It's equivalent to running a set of VMs from Rackspace.

It can be more, a service or platform (SaaS or PaaS), which is what you get from Salesforce (SaaS) or Azure/RDS (PaaS).

It's funny to me. So many people resisted going to colocated servers, or renting web servers in 1999. Now it's something people think about instantly. The same will happen with the cloud, which is really just the same thing.

Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help

Post #1305062

djackson 22568

Posted Wednesday, May 23, 2012 9:38 AM

Old Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 8:56 AM
Points: 310, Visits: 470

Jayanth_Kurup (5/22/2012)

I think there is a strong argument for big companies to migrate thier dev and test environments to the cloud ( vs virtualization) and continue to host the prod systems on in house infra.

Now that isn't a bad idea.

Dave

Post #1305069

« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Permissions