Running filePro in the Cloud?

[Fairlight]

Yeah, I'd concur, more or less.  But a decent amount of planning is
necessary.

The big cost in a hosted solution will be RAM provisioning.  And a -lot- of
people over-provision their RAM.  You'd be surprised what you can get out
of 1GB, and yet people provision 8GB for something which should require no
more than 1-2GB.  Tuning is imperative, because you're not doing a one-off
purchase you can just write off; you're paying for that resource every
bloody month.

That's the most expensive part, with disk coming second.  Yes, lower end
drives are a commodity.  But when you have places putting in SAS drives for
high performance, it stops being so inexpensive very quickly.  And again,
it's a recurring fee.

mark->

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 09:37:12AM -0400, Scott Walker thus spoke:
> One nice thing about setting up a hosted server (at least in the linux
> world) is there is not a large up front hardware cost.  So you should set up
> at test and then TEST it, to see how the real world experience will be and
> what problems there are, if any.
> 
> If it does not go well, abandon the test, with your time being the major
> cost suffered.
> 
> Regards,
> Scott
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Filepro-list [mailto:filepro-list-
> > bounces+scottwalker=ramsystemscorp.com at lists.celestial.com] On Behalf Of
> > Fairlight via Filepro-list
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:34 AM
> > To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> > Subject: Re: Running filePro in the Cloud?
> > 
> > If I never heard the word "cloud" again, it'll be too soon.  It's a
> > buzzword that means something different to everyone, and therefore means
> > next to nothing.
> > 
> > Bottom line on the tangible business side of things is that it's almost
> > always bad business to make knee-jerk decisions based on one hardware
> > failure.  The only exception of which I can think is if someone was
> > running without backups and their hardware failed, in which case they
> > should immediately take steps to implement backups.
> > 
> > Changing one's entire architecture over a one-off is silly.  One might
> > start to consider it for the longer term, but it's likely to generate a
> > poor outcome if if one acts rashly and without considering the full
> > ramifications of any changes.
> > 
> > mark->
> > 
> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:09:45PM -0400, Del via Filepro-list thus
> > spoke:
> > > Thanks for all the replies about running filePro in the cloud.
> > > After thinking it over, I believe I will advise my client to stick
> > > with his in house Windows server.
> > > The performance on the local server is excellent, and the cloud may be
> > > subject to variable internet performance.
> > > Given that his server is protected by multiple levels of security, I
> > > don't think it is any less secure than a cloud based server, and maybe
> > > more so.
> > > He backs up his system both locally and to the cloud, and also keeps
> > > copies off site, so I think his data is safe from loss.
> > > True, he had an unusual failure of the board that controls his Raid
> > > disk configuration, but that is the only hardware caused downtime he
> > > has had for several years, and it is clear that running in the cloud
> > > does not guarantee 100% uptime.
> > > In the long run, the expense of running in the cloud appears to be
> > > greater than maintaining a local server.
> > > If he relocates his application to a cloud server, he still has to
> > > maintain local workstations, and I am sure there will be plenty of
> > > technical issues to be solved, so it does not appear to remove the
> > > "IT" burden.
> > > Please correct me if any of these ideas are just plain wrong.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Filepro-list mailing list
> > Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Subscription Changes
> > http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Audio panton, cogito singularis.