And then I have something else to support. Kind of the whole point of using AWS not to have to support infrastructure unnecessarily.
On top of that. I lose the “easy button” of depending on our AWS business support contract if something gets wonky.
On top of that. I lose the “easy button” of depending on our AWS business support contract if something gets wonky.
Can he do all that across multiple geographically dispersed redundant data centers?
Having relatively easy to spin up alternatives is a great thing. I can run my application entirely on a local kubernetes cluster or one on Amazon, DigitalOcean or Google's cloud services. That sort of flexibility is excellent and has allowed us to scale into situations where we otherwise couldn't have affordably done so (being able to buy some bandwidth from Joe Entrepreneur has it's benefits sometimes).
Which compliance regulation require you not to use a cloud provider? At most they may require you to not share a server with another company - that can be done with a drop down - or the data has to be hosted locally - again that can be done by selecting a region.
The policies that say not to use a company controlled by the US government. Or the ones that say under no circumstances should the data be sent over the Internet to a third party "because OPs are hard".
Even if you chose to use AWS’s OLAP database,Redshift, it uses standard Postgres drivers to connect. You could move it to a standard Postgres installation. You wouldn’t get the performance characteristics of course.
If you don’t want to be “locked in” to DynamoDB, there is always the just announced Mongo compatible DocumentDB. Of course ADFS is used everywhere.
Why in the world would I want to manage a colo with all of those services myself and still not have any geographic redundancy - let alone any place near our outsourced developers?