Question about AWS
-
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
Now let's add a file server. Let's assume that you need 300GB of file server.
AWS will be $120/mo. That's $7200 in five years.
Now let's compare the on premises. We can probably get by with the $800 server that we already bought in the example above, but just to be insanely conservative let's spend another $800 to upgrade the hardware. We don't need another license as our last one has an unused VM allotment for us.
So in five years, this would cost a total of only the $800.
So between a tiny AD server and a really tiny file server, the on premises is $6800 cheaper over five years. And a sixth year would be SO dramatically cheaper.
And if you think AD on premises is faster than AWS, file servers don't work remotely well at all. You are easily looking at a file server that would be unusable on cloud and screaming fast on premises.
Thanks SAM, I would bring him the numbers then. 300GB is only 2 network folders. We are now reaching 6TB..hehehe.
-
I think the trick is math. It sounds like he's using emotions to look at this, and not money. Make him put the cost into real numbers.
I use cloud all of the time, but that's because I'm doing things completely differently, don't have a premises at all, don't use Windows, etc.
Windows alone is almost a guarantee that cloud is out of the question. Not always, but almost always. But Windows, file server, non-elastic workloads. This is like a text book example of when no one should even talk about cloud.
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
Thanks SAM, I would bring him the numbers then. 300GB is only 2 network folders. We are now reaching 6TB..hehehe.
Dear Lord! No normal service can handle that. LightSail and Vultr tap out below 500GB. The only way to do that is with traditional AWS which is a lot more work and anything about 300GB is really impossibly expensive. The cost of 6TB on cloud would be absurd. For something that would cost only $300 on premises, might cost you $1,000 per month on cloud.
$300 vs. $60,000
HAHAHAA
-
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
He said that it would actually be great if we use AWS as he sees more branches and road-warriors in the future.
How are those things affecting anything? Why is AWS better for branches or road warriors than your current premises? Do you have really bad Internet? If so, what will you do if your storage goes offline when your network isn't up?
Yes we do have bad internet here in Philippines. We would be getting multiple vendors for these though. We already have 1 fiber and 2 dsl lines which we plan to upgrade. However, still, just 2 weeks ago, we experienced a fiber outage and 1 dsl line. We still made use of 1 slow dsl for 2 days.
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
He said that it would actually be great if we use AWS as he sees more branches and road-warriors in the future.
How are those things affecting anything? Why is AWS better for branches or road warriors than your current premises? Do you have really bad Internet? If so, what will you do if your storage goes offline when your network isn't up?
Yes we do have bad internet here in Philippines. We would be getting multiple vendors for these though. We already have 1 fiber and 2 dsl lines which we plan to upgrade. However, still, just 2 weeks ago, we experienced a fiber outage and 1 dsl line. We still made use of 1 slow dsl for 2 days.
Does that make AWS better or worse? If you had AWS and your ISP went down, your office would be offline but your road warriors would still be working. If you had on premises and the Internet went down, your office would keep working but the road warriors would be offline.
-
I think some of the problems are probably more fundamental. Why are tools like AD and SMB file sharing being used in your situation? Those aren't appropriate tools or even platforms in your use case, from the sounds of it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
He said that it would actually be great if we use AWS as he sees more branches and road-warriors in the future.
How are those things affecting anything? Why is AWS better for branches or road warriors than your current premises? Do you have really bad Internet? If so, what will you do if your storage goes offline when your network isn't up?
Yes we do have bad internet here in Philippines. We would be getting multiple vendors for these though. We already have 1 fiber and 2 dsl lines which we plan to upgrade. However, still, just 2 weeks ago, we experienced a fiber outage and 1 dsl line. We still made use of 1 slow dsl for 2 days.
Does that make AWS better or worse? If you had AWS and your ISP went down, your office would be offline but your road warriors would still be working. If you had on premises and the Internet went down, your office would keep working but the road warriors would be offline.
Told him that but he said that with multiple ISPs including wireless 4Gs, we can survive. If submarine cables are the culprit, then no business country-wide.
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
He said that it would actually be great if we use AWS as he sees more branches and road-warriors in the future.
How are those things affecting anything? Why is AWS better for branches or road warriors than your current premises? Do you have really bad Internet? If so, what will you do if your storage goes offline when your network isn't up?
Yes we do have bad internet here in Philippines. We would be getting multiple vendors for these though. We already have 1 fiber and 2 dsl lines which we plan to upgrade. However, still, just 2 weeks ago, we experienced a fiber outage and 1 dsl line. We still made use of 1 slow dsl for 2 days.
Does that make AWS better or worse? If you had AWS and your ISP went down, your office would be offline but your road warriors would still be working. If you had on premises and the Internet went down, your office would keep working but the road warriors would be offline.
Told him that but he said that with multiple ISPs including wireless 4Gs, we can survive. If submarine cables are the culprit, then no business country-wide.
You mean that he just avoided the question?
-
Even in the US with fast fiber, accessing 6TB over the Internet with SMB is ridiculously slow. Having to do it over DSL from another country.... impossible.
His proposed solution is going to cost a fortune and it wont' even work.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
Even in the US with fast fiber, accessing 6TB over the Internet with SMB is ridiculously slow. Having to do it over DSL from another country.... impossible.
His proposed solution is going to cost a fortune and it wont' even work.
Sort of. In anycase, you have been most helpful in opening my eyes. I can now concentrate on the Virtual Infrastructure I had proposed.
-
With the numbers you just brought in, he may be discouraged. I'll sure to include those to my report/recommendation.
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
With the numbers you just brought in, he may be discouraged. I'll sure to include those to my report/recommendation.
Should be more than the numbers. Sure it will lose a ton of money. But the far bigger deal is how it won't even work. The AD will work, just slowly. But the file server realistically just won't function. No one does this, ever, for a reason.
If what he was proposing was cheap or functional, everyone would do it. But absolutely no one does. It's not like everyone hasn't thought about it and realized it doesn't work. He is thinking that he can reinvent the wheel, in a way that is so obvious yet he seems to think that everyone hasn't gone down this path already.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
With the numbers you just brought in, he may be discouraged. I'll sure to include those to my report/recommendation.
Should be more than the numbers. Sure it will lose a ton of money. But the far bigger deal is how it won't even work. The AD will work, just slowly. But the file server realistically just won't function. No one does this, ever, for a reason.
If what he was proposing was cheap or functional, everyone would do it. But absolutely no one does. It's not like everyone hasn't thought about it and realized it doesn't work. He is thinking that he can reinvent the wheel, in a way that is so obvious yet he seems to think that everyone hasn't gone down this path already.
and that. Yeah, those 2 will be the dagger. I won't be spending my time with it...just a fraction on what service we can still use AWS for.
I do think that email server like Zimbra will be working great there though.
-
or our other apps like project management which is LAMP-based.
-
Now if he really want to do things in a sensible way... he should be looking at modernizing. Basically he is many years behind and looking to not even try to modernize. He says he wants to "future proof", but his ideas are bad ones from twelve years ago. "Future proofing" is the opposite of what it is, it's not even a current design.
He's using Windows which makes no sense here and hasn't for like a decade. He's trying to use cloud in the "we just heard about cloud and got it totally wrong" way. He's using AD and SMB where they are the worst possible tools. He's looking to build out a VPN infrastructure a decade after we started abandoning that design (for the most part.)
There are loads of modern things that we could do to probably really improve stuff here. But it would all be polar opposite to what is here. Like.. .what purpose is AD serving (dont' say security, that's not something it does) when you don't need shared computing? Why not modern storage (like NExtCloud?)
Basically any modern network would naturally address the kinds of problems that you are having. But his design seems purpose built to make everything fail.
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
I do think that email server like Zimbra will be working great there though.
Works great here for sure
Check out Mailcow, too. -
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
or our other apps like project management which is LAMP-based.
Now that is a workload that can be great for cloud under the right circumstances. But if you already have an on premises situation, then it won't likely make sense and will be better to be on premises.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
or our other apps like project management which is LAMP-based.Now that is a workload that can be great for cloud under the right circumstances. But if you already have an on premises situation, then it won't likely make sense and will be better to be on premises.
Okay, got that. You've got a point in this (and all of the above
) . -
The problem with separating workloads, like having AD and storage on premises and LAMP apps on cloud, is that it would be "free" to run the LAMP stack on the on premises server since you already have it. So even though it might be cheap on AWS, it's still not "cheap" overall. And more for you to manage.
-
From your description, my guess is that very simple virtualization is what you need. KVM is where I would start. Free and enterprise. All of the features included. Keep it simple, and standard.
