> Why use true multi-cloud clusters?<p>> Two reasons: Disaster recovery and freedom from vendor lock in.<p>In my experience, those two reasons are almost never sufficient to warrant a multi-cloud solution. The costs for multi-cloud are enormous. Another commenter mentioned egress costs, but there are numerous other costs:<p>1. You've added a <i>lot</i> of complexity on top of existing cloud solutions. That complexity can make things fail in unique ways that may make some of your cherished reliability benefits moot.<p>2. You are always coding to the "lowest common denominator" of any cloud service, meaning you're missing out on a ton of productivity by forgoing useful services.<p>I'm just curious if anyone can comment that has experience actually using multi-cloud, and was it worth it?
One key missing factor: live replication across three clouds is not just a technical problem, but a cost problem, because the egress costs will be murderous.
The article was a good read, but I wanted to try to answer this from the perspective of a fortune 100 enterprise (I work for one, in their cloud team).<p>We're starting a journey on Azure and AWS at once with limited financial resources, and limited talent(it's tough to hire in cloud skills to work for us, and our stack is so old it's not an easy transition for people who only know that). Operating AWS and Azure and require different skill sets and different approaches and they're far from transferable. All the tools and techniques we develop or acquire for managing AWS are not applicable to Azure and vice versa, and because we're splitting our effort between the two everything takes twice as long.<p>I think the right way for a company like us to approach this would be to go "all in" in one, build expertise and offer a lot of value back to the business, then look to build out the second cloud to meet your BCP/Cost Savings goals.
Funny thing is, if those multi-cloud proponents would go in 100% on one provider, things would go much smoother and they would have less reasons to go multi-cloud in the end.<p>But yeah, when I look at the rate that some companies sunset their products, I understand the fear a bit.
I'm dealing with similar problems - trying to setup direct connection between AWS and Azure.<p>How does planetscale handle the complexity of DIY classic VPN and ensuring a high availability on those VPN links - and ensuring that a certain amount of throughput can be sustained?<p>Is there a requirement for planetscale to create a full network mesh between all cloud providers, all regions? I'm assuming that it's more selective because it becomes untenable as more cloud regions pop out requiring (n * (n-1))/2 VPN links where n is the number of cloud regions.<p>Happy to learn anything I can here. Thanks for the blog post.
> Abhi: Hi team! On the level of our Kubernetes operator, what do you think was the hardest challenge in making multi-cloud databases work?<p>Multi-cloud is a network problem. Ask anybody who knows what they're doing: is it the best idea to have dependencies over WAN? No. Can it be a solution to a problem? Yes, but what's your problem? PlanetScale might have a case if their product <i>sells.<p></i>Then* only come the platform problems.