Why we are not leaving the cloud
Why was hybrid not considered? With providers like megaport providing really inexpensive direct connect, this is almost a no brainer.<p>This may seem harsh, but relying on random commenters shows a huge flaw in how you guys went about this.<p>Physical environments DO work well, but they do require experience to run them. I have used AWS for as long as its been around, but nothing beats physical environments for &quot;known workloads&quot;, as long as you run them EXACTLY like you would run a cloud environment. This is why the hybrid approach is such a great thing. Run what you know well in physical and reap great savings, run what you dont know well cloud ( as well as take advantage of the analytics products), and reap the speed ;)<p>- This means thinking of physical servers are individual units. 
- This means redundancy at every level.
- This means architecting for failure ( servers and switches do gie ).
- This means no shared storage for performance critical parts ( shared storage as below the OS level ). 
- This means objects stores&#x2F;sharding&#x2F;etc as your storage layer.
- This means real engineering
- And this means exactly the same whether you&#x27;re physical or not.<p>I&#x27;ve managed environments of 50 vm&#x27;s and environments of 50000 physical servers. The methodology is always the same.<p>and yes, this means you can save some monthly cost, and apply it to staff, that can do a lot more than just maintain this infrastructure.<p>PS: for those that think that showing up to a datacenter is required, you&#x27;re doing it wrong. Pretty much any datacenter has hot-hands service, and with the right redundancy, hardware replacement is something you can do at a slower pace.<p>PPS: im sure someone will nitpick some of my points. The reality is, there is real money savings here. For example, Snapchat spends MORE in cloud infrastructure in 2016&#x2F;2017 per year, than ALL OF GOOGLE did in 2012... think about that for a second... even netflix runs openconnect to push bits..