Majority of firms have a multi-cloud strategy. On the other hand, hybrid-cloud approaches combine a public cloud provider with virtualization infrastructure in a company’s data center. Many businesses only use one public cloud provider.
It’s possible to find yourself in numerous public cloud scenarios for various reasons. For whatever reason, you may have acquired a new public cloud. After a long time where each business unit was responsible for its own IT responsibilities, you may be consolidating them. If you’re a worldwide company, there are inevitable chances you’re now a “multi-cloud” service provider.
A few corporate leaders feel that using many public clouds will keep their bargaining leverage intact. Not in the current landscape does this hold at all.
As a result of this competition, all of the leading cloud service providers have very similar products. You can switch cloud providers if you quarrel with your current one, and you’re not tethered to a mountain of sunk costs in your prior provider’s capital assets. As long as your cloud architecture is adequately planned, you should be able to move stuff around.
It’s not uncommon for companies to list reliability as a rationale for using several public clouds. Having many suppliers for the same raw material reduces supply risk in manufacturing. It’s also possible to have different telecom providers if a utility worker accidentally cuts through a fiber optic line.
On the other hand, public cloud providers have policies and services in place to ensure that their services are secure. As long as you’ve designed your cloud infrastructure appropriately and are using the redundancy options supplied by the providers, your data and service should be unaffected even if one of your providers’ data centers is destroyed by a storm.
In the cloud, you can learn new skills.
Pros: Using and optimizing each cloud provider’s functionality differs significantly, even though they all provide essentially the same basic functionality. Your team will need to learn more about each provider’s nuances because they rarely match up one-to-one.
Cons: Because of the current lack of cloud-skilled candidates, your recruiting and training efforts will be more difficult if you decide to use multiple public clouds. In addition, you extend the climb up the competency ladder.
When it comes to mastering a skill, the only way is to put it into practice in the real world. Your engineers will need more training using multiple public cloud providers, which means you’ll have to deal with more mistakes and retries.
Architecture within multiple clouds
Pros: Organizations can migrate their workloads to the cloud in various ways. Lift and shift have been a popular starting point, but it only provides short-term benefits.
The real benefits begin to show when you can take advantage of cloud-native architectures, such as serverless and fully managed services. All prominent providers have robust offerings to increase scale, reduce costs, improve security, and offload undifferentiated work from your staff. Cloud-native architectures typically take advantage of cloud provider economics and efficiencies more than traditional architectures.
Cons: For cloud-agnostic architecture, you’re likely constrained to the “lowest common denominator” architecture if you use multiple public clouds. A single cloud provider’s efficiencies won’t be fully exploited, and you run the risk of lower ROI from your cloud investments.
It’s natural to wonder if you’re at risk when a public cloud provider experiences a general outage. Is it a good idea to spread your bets across multiple public clouds? A single primary cloud provider, in my opinion, is as or more resilient than a landscape spread across various providers. An ideal cloud-native architecture should have built-in resiliency by default.
You can enable replication, auto-scaling, and auto-failover with a mouse click if you haven’t done so already with providers who offer multi-site and multi-regional options. If you’re building these resilience features across multiple providers, you’ll need to employ manual or third-party options to monitor systems, sync data, and trigger failovers. As a result, if you don’t have a team of absolute unicorn cloud engineers who are fluent in multiple cloud providers, you will have a lot more handoffs and touches—not ideal in a crisis.
Pros: In the film Contact, John Hurt’s character asks, “Why build one when you can have two for twice the price?” One of the benefits of consolidating cloud spending into a single provider is that it lowers your total cost of ownership.
Cons: If you’re using more than one cloud provider, your expenses go beyond those you see each month. The total cost of ownership includes various other costs, such as those associated with employee recruitment and training.
To learn more about our cloud services, visit https://www.oaperg.com/services/cloud-computing/