Microservices 101: The good, the bad and the ugly (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 14, 2015 6:56 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
In reply to: Microservices 101: The good, the bad and the ugly (ZDNet) by dlang
Parent article: Microservices 101: The good, the bad and the ugly (ZDNet)

> talking about how setting something up is only a few clicks and a little time but ignoring the long term planning and maintenance is a classic mistake (and why devops is a curseword in some circles)
Why do you think use of Cloud ignores long-term planning? This company eventually outgrew Elastic Beanstalk and set up custom infrastructure (also on top of the AWS).

And since Elastic Beanstalk is used by many companies and is extensively documented, migration was extremely easy.

> it works for experimentation (much of the time), but if you actually want to run a reliable service over time it needs the planning and maintenance that a sysadmin provides. If you don't have anyone else, you become the sysadmin.
Why do you think Elastic Beanstalk (or Azure App Service) are not reliable? They are managed by teams of qualified professionals, with multiple 24-hour on-call support engineers.

Microservices 101: The good, the bad and the ugly (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 14, 2015 7:34 UTC (Tue) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641) [Link] (2 responses)

We are talking about a completely different scale here too I think.

Your friends sounds like a pretty small bunch of people.

A large company with 100s, maybe even 1000s of projects being worked on at a time might come to a completely different conclusion.

Microservices 101: The good, the bad and the ugly (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 14, 2015 17:29 UTC (Tue) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link] (1 responses)

The bigger the org, the better they can exploit provisioned resources. This is why AWS was initially adopted by many large orgs (DropBox, Netflix, etc) and has most of its use dominated by them.

A large organization may have a daily flux in requirements of thousands of instances, dozens of databases, dozens of queues. Plus of course the beta/test environments, which doubles costs.

Microservices 101: The good, the bad and the ugly (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 14, 2015 19:14 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

It's true that many large orgs use AWS and rent server time but the big value proposition is for small firms who can get a higher level of service by renting that they could never achieve by owning. A big group like Netflix or Dropbox have the resources to build their own infrastructure at a similar quality level as AWS like Facebook does, they just choose not to. There is probably a case to be made that developing infrastructure in-house distracts focus from their developing their primary business offering but financially the profit they pay Amazon at large scale to rent by the minute could probably pay for the headcount and capitol to manage the infrastructure in-house.