The multicloud gelatinous cube

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Pondering the care and feeding of your multicloud gelatinous cube. (Which engulfs everything in its path, and digests everything organic.) Most organizations end up multicloud, rather than intending to be multicloud in a deliberate and structured way. So typical tales go like this: The org started doing digital business-related new applications on AWS and now AWS has become the center of gravity for all new cloud-native apps and cloud-related skills. Then the org decided to migrate "boring" LOB Windows-based COTS to the cloud for cost-savings, and lifted-and-shifted them onto Azure (thereby not actually saving money, but that's a post for another day). Now the org has a data science team that thinks that GCP is unbearably sexy. And there's a floating island out there of Oracle business applications where OCI is being contemplated. And don't forget about the division in China, that hosts on Alibaba Cloud... Multicloud is inevitable in almost all organizations. Cloud IaaS+PaaS spans such a wide swathe of IT functions that it's impractical and unrealistic to assume that the organization will be single-vendor over the long term. Just like the enterprise tends to have at least three of everything (if not ten of everything), the enterprise is similarly not going to resist the temptation of being multicloud, even if it's complex and challenging to manage, and significantly increases management costs. It is a rare organization that both has diverse business needs, and can exercise the discipline to use a single provider. Despite recognizing the giant ooze that we see squelching our way, along with our unavoidable doom, there are things we can do to prepare, govern, and ensure that we retain some of our sanity. For starters, we can actively choose our multicloud strategy and stance. We can classify providers into tiers, decide what providers are approved for use and under what circumstances, and decide what providers are preferred and/or strategic. We can then determine the level of support that the organization is going to have for each tier -- decide, for instance, that we'll provide full governance and operations for our primary strategic provider, a lighter-weight approach that leans on an MSP to support our secondary strategic provider, and less support (or no support beyond basic risk management) for other providers. After that, we can build an explicit workload placement policy that has an algorithm that guides application owners/architects in deciding where particular applications live, based on integration affinities, good technical fit, etc. Note that cost-based provider selection and cost-based long-term workload placement are both terrible ideas. This is a constant fight between cloud architects and procurement managers. It is rooted in the erroneous idea that IaaS is a commodity, and that provider pricing advantages are long-term rather than short-lived. Using cost-based placement often leads to higher long-term TCO, not to mention a grand mess with data gravity and thus data management, and fragile application integrations. See my new research note, "Comparing Cloud Workload Placement Strategies" (Gartner paywall) for a guide to multicloud IaaS / IaaS+PaaS strategies (including when you should pursue a single-cloud approach). In a few weeks, you'll see the follow-up doc "Designing a Cloud Workload Placement Policy" publish, which provides a guide to writing such policies, with an analysis of different placement factors and their priorities.

Source: Gartner Blog Network On:

Read On

This post was originally published on this site

Leave a Reply

CIO Newsletters

Copyright ©  2020  CIO Portal. All rights reserved.