IBM acquires Kubecost
newsroom.ibm.com
newsroom.ibm.com
Do you need a tool to tell you that your company underpays or is bad at recruiting? Or maybe that you do something boring that people don't want to work for?
IMO Keda is the more important product in this space, because it translates business requirements like max queue wait time into compute resources.
If you are operating in a way where small cost differences decide if you are break even if you have already failed, no amount of "FinOps" will stop your trend from going to zero. It is delaying the inevitable.
They might be CapEx in some imaginary, nonactionable accounting sense. Like maybe you are mislabeling exclusive rights to dig holes in some neighborhoods as telecommunications equipment capital expenditures. Just pay an accountant to make up stories for you. You don't need the tool.
The last big one: replacing a backbone country-wide network in France with AWS
It is far less expensive due to the low bandwidth requirements (and also the ability to go full managed services)
What stops dark fibers or hardware providers from "increasing the price" ? Nothing, and they do that too
But sometimes people are not near enough the spend or product support level where it makes sense to do that. I would gander, though, if you're running cloud cost tooling you probably are one of those people.
I've never had AWS "increase the price." Is there some reason to suspect this is a thing to actually worry about?
The things they sell as an average CPU performance, etc are basically the average when their cloud began.
From Wikipedia:
Some forecasters, including Gordon Moore,[122] predict that Moore's law will end by around 2025.[123][120][124] Although Moore's Law will reach a physical limit, some forecasters are optimistic about the continuation of technological progress in a variety of other areas, including new chip architectures, quantum computing, and AI and machine learning.[125][126] Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang declared Moore's law dead in 2022;[2] several days later, Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger countered with the opposite claim.[3]
Cloud vendors have to buy products themselves. If their prices aren't changing then we have a market problem that extends beyond AWS.
This is probably why Graviton exists and provides cheaper VMs and Lambdas running on it.
> as an average CPU performance
CPU performance, in the cloud, is effectively free. You can overcommit and time share the CPU.
What you're paying for is memory.
How do you get there? Even in markets without any specific lock in, the top brands charge prices that have nothing to do with raw costs.
You've mistaken my point about "total cost of customer" for "raw cost of materials."
The "top brands" probably do marketing. That costs. They probably have better supply chain availability. That costs. They probably have on site engineering support they can offer you. That all costs.
What you're highlighting is the cost of CPUs has little to do with raw materials and with all this other attendant process. That has been true since a few short years after the product started existing.
Citation needed
> if it isn't it is largely because cloud vendors can't bear to take less
Even if we choose to accept your original premise, I think anti-competitive behaviour is much more likely than "can't bear to take less".
Spot pricing is kind of a black box, and it also makes no sense.
Vendor lock-in is a concern with cloud platforms but doesn't relate to the app in the submission.
No, it can't be. Stop with the pseudo intellectual linkedin lingo please.
15 years ago I worked an infrastructure department with 50+ employees - these days a lot of that work that we used to do back then is taken care of by AWS.
Scaling the infra to meet peak capacity (which might be two days in a year) because you can only run on hardware you have, having data centres and data centre engineers, are all costs that go away with cloud, even though you are paying more for the compute you do use.
I challenge you : give me a single product that cannot be moved away, given some (cost or time).
At the same time, I again challenge you : give me a single product that you can move between providers with no cost nor time.
To that last one, you can actually find stuff. For instance, you could setup your nginx in instances, without any kind of interactions with the hosting provider. In which case, you limit yourself with what everybody can do, leaving all opportunities to only use the base minimal.
But wait .. are you not locked-in with nginx (or to use a better example: with redis) ?
Vendor lock-in is a scam to increase your bills. Because, in itself, everything is vendor locking. And it does not matter. Think your architecture, design your code, and act when necessary.
Yes, one can migrate their entire CI/CD ecosystem, countless IAM policies across multiple AWS accounts in an organization, their lambdas, databases and S3 buckets over to Azure given enough time and money.
The thing is that most everything in the cloud is billed on subscription, and many core components of networked services need not be (except support). Open file server, self-hosted IAM and standards-based execution stacks. Don't like hosting your nginx on Vendor-A? Move it to Vendor-B.
Yes, the tradeoffs are costs. No, vendor "lock-in" is not the only component one should measure when deciding an architecture. Yes, "lock-in" can occur with on-prem software, and hardware, as well.
Yes, it's real and worthy of concern when a vendor knows they can squeeze you because you have no other choice and the level of effort to migrate is too high.
Yes. If you want to make an argument for change in a business environment you need numbers.
Cloud is more expensive. But you’re not stuck with capacity and sysadmin tickets.
More expensive than what? Doing your own?
That depends on what you are doing. Often, the cloud is cheaper if you factor in the human cost. I've seen many spreadsheets that just quote the hardware costs.
Kadokawa can tell you all about how their in-house shit (literally, Japanese suck at computers) got pwned while the stuff they had in the cloud (I hate the term, but it is what it is) were unscathed.
Keeping in-house has its benefits, but the costs are also steep.
In a nutshell, any K8S deployment on-premises tends to be inherently optimized, saving a significant amount of time and resources. I have new servers and old servers in the same cluster, that is epic.
Modern FinOps often feels like a frustrating exercise: Should I choose 2x 2XXL instances or 4x 8XL instances? The conversation rarely focuses on optimizing software performance or database efficiency. Instead, the cloud has turned into a maze of cost centers, where it’s easy to get lost in ‘managing’ the cloud rather than building valuable products for end users.
thanks!
p.s. we got some complaints about slowness on a few pages. can you schedule some time to sync up and take a look? we need to get this solved!
IBM bought RedHat 6 years ago, can we truly claim that they've done something useful with that purchase? I get that they haven't managed to mess it up like they did with SoftLayer, but they've also haven't done much RedHat couldn't do on its own.
IBM policy has definitely infected the company and while outwardly the host still resembles its old self, the infection is spreading and the host is as good as dead.
Strong PMF with the existing hybrid cloud play that RHEL and OpenShift provides.
Cost Management and Auditing is always a major pain point for any Platform team so this will be well received.
R.I.P. Kubecost
It definitely is a company that can't do anything due to bureaucracy / random bullshit.
You quickly understand why they acquire rather than invent.