Modern cloud computing is becoming highly customizable. Cloud enterprises are starting to realize the limitations of being tied to a single provider, which prevents them from becoming more flexible with their workflows As cloud computing begins to take a more hybrid approach, there may be a need to switch vendors. However, this becomes a blocker due to technical limitations and legal dependencies. This creates the ‘vendor lock-in’ situation.
A commonly adopted strategy by cloud enterprises to prevent the above is to employ the services of a zero lock-in cloud platform. This article is based on my podcast episode with Chad Crowell, Senior Platform Engineer at Civo, highlighting several critical components that ensure user autonomy and scalability without vendor dependence.
Why does vendor lock-in happen?
Let us consider storing data in Amazon’s object storage S3 buckets. In this example, the initial financial cost can be an inexpensive option. But gradually, over time, as Crowell explains, there may be a need to store that data with a lower-cost option (such as Amazon Glacier) as it may be a more cost-effective solution in the long run. This can be a challenge as data portability and migration can become difficult once it is stored by a cloud vendor, as they inevitably lock you in once you opt for a particular service.
A particular deadlock arises when using open-source platforms like Kubernetes to host data. Enterprises may feel that since Kubernetes is an open-source project, it is freely available for anyone who wishes to run their workload. However, each cloud provider has their version of Kubernetes, which the cloud provider manages. While this has multiple advantages in maintenance and increased security, the downside is that multiple workloads run on managed Kubernetes clusters.Â
These workflows can use either Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS), or even Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE). It’s all good until you decide it’s time to migrate from one to another provider – these cloud vendors have their own add-ons and plugins for their Kubernetes clusters, and it becomes very hard to migrate or repatriate your cloud infrastructure.Â
For example, Amazon has its version of PostGres and Dynamo DB, i.e. different databases and its own memory data store (similar to Redis Cache). These open-source products are not easily converted to anything outside of Amazon. Similarly, each cloud provider has its setup, which makes it difficult to migrate or move data around, creating vendor lock-in.
What are the main reasons for cloud repatriation?
While many users of top cloud providers like AKS or GKE may feel comfortable with their current cloud storage and infrastructure, some may need to switch to one or more vendors for different reasons. Here are the two major factors as explained by Crowell:
Cost efficiency: A common misconception is that the cloud is a commodity, and with so many users, the prices should get lower as the customer base grows. On the contrary, in the current cloud vendor scenario (as highlighted by Forbes recently), the prices are substantially higher and periodically rising. As such, customers are looking to move off of the cloud for cost control. Many enterprises end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is unprecedented, as many of the services provided by different hyperscalers are not useful in the end. This is one of the biggest reasons companies move off the cloud.
Scalability & flexibility: In the webinar, another reason for cloud repatriation, as explained by Crowell, is that organizations may want to ‘take control over the system’ i.e., customize the cloud applications they’re building and be able to have more flexibility and control over what they’re creating as well as the product or services that they’re providing to their customers. This may occur for small to medium-sized businesses that have scaled up their user base from 10-20 users to maybe 100,000 users, and the need to migrate to a different service is required to handle costs or add additional services.
So what should an ideal zero lock-in platform look like?
Most enterprises are looking for a balance between the above two major factors of vendor lock-in. An ideal zero lock-in cloud platform helps bridge the gap between the two by eliminating the cost of acquiring and maintaining data centers or other infrastructure-based costs as well as offering the freedom and flexibility to customize and optimize workflow with technology without the challenges of being locked into a particular service and incurring high costs.
In addition, a zero lock-in cloud service provider tries to simplify the gap from creation to execution to the maintenance of workloads on the cloud. Enterprises should run their workloads in a high-availability, fault-tolerant way that can easily get organizations up and running and conveniently scale applications and workloads on the cloud.
Zero-lock-in cloud platforms offer a strategic advantage by allowing users to choose the best services from multiple providers, enhance resilience, and optimize costs. Civo’s flagship Stack Enterprise is a robust example of zero cloud lock-in. It allows for complete control and scalability with its Kubernetes clusters without the dependency on any custom cloud plug-ins or solutions, making it an ideal choice over many competitors. As cloud technology evolves, avoiding vendor lock-in will become increasingly crucial for organizations seeking to maximize their IT investments and innovate rapidly.
If you found this article interesting, do catch the entire conversation with Chad Crowell of Civo right here.
