An interesting question has been raised on today’s article from Channel Web. Doug Woodburn asks: Have we become over-reliant on Amazon Web Services (AWS)? With this weekend’s five-hour outage on it’s S3 storage platform allegedly (according to the media) killing both digital business services and consumer offerings like music services, crowd sourcing and streaming channels were affected.
The wake up call comes from the revelation that 40p in every 1£ of public cloud spend goes to AWS. I recall the media backlash when the same discovery came about Tesco in the UK.
This weekend’s outage makes me ask two more questions:
Are we treating Cloud as an abdication of responsibility?
The beauty of Cloud is its ability to delegate responsibility for a task to an external provider who can bring more agility, lower cost to serve and service model flexibility. So do we frequently send certain core workloads to the cloud (backup for example) because the root cause of the issue is perceived to be more difficult to face than sending the issue elsewhere?
What plans do we have to make service provision more portable?
More to the point here is that data has weight. And this weight comes in the form of migration. If you think about it, in a virtualised world the migration of services is relatively easy. What takes time is the movement of the data that supports it. Hence the weight argument. What would the impact to portability be if we only kept relevant data live with pointers back to reference/archive data that’s kept somewhere else?
Could we not fire up almost instantaneously these services in another provider and make our businesses more agile not having to carry the legacy of the past with us every time.
After all. If it were paper would we treat it the same?