Bad IT decisions causing a corporate meltdown
Posted by n3rdyone@reddit | sysadmin | View on Reddit | 246 comments
The 1200 person company I work for was bought out by another 60,000 employee company 20 years ago, and had been happily going on with its business, happily and independently raking in 35% of the net profits for the larger company every year.
After a change in the IT leadership, Larger company decides it can reign in the “crazy” amount of spending we’re doing on hardware and licensing by forcing us to embark on a cloud migration. Don’t worry, they’ll support us.
Nearly complete with the migration now, the complaints about slowness, outages, Application failures have been escalated to the highest levels, customers are bailing, director level employees are jumping ship, abandoning their pensions.
I still have that screen shot of the teams meeting saved where I said, “this is a bad idea” with 6 thumbs up under it.
I hate that I need to refresh my resume in this goddamn horrible job market.
Trufactsmantis@reddit
You can't reign in spending by migrating to cloud... you can add scalability.
Test-NetConnection@reddit
Eh. It really depends on the size of the organization and business requirements. If you are a small team supporting less than 100 servers then it may not be efficient to host hypervisors on bare metal and pay for redundant AC units, generators, enterprise switching, storage area networks, and everything that comes along with that infrastructure. You still have a ton of overhead even moving to a colocation facility. The cloud makes things like file shares easy and resilience is something that you don't need to worry as much about. DR is as simple as replicating compute to another region - no duplicative infrastructure. This is the type of environment that thrives in cloud environments.
surveysaysno@reddit
You can scale in a Colo from as low as a few servers.
The cloud advantages are more about dynamics vs constant load than anything else.
Test-NetConnection@reddit
And who manages those servers? Who is patching the hypervisor, updating San firmware, monitoring performance, and replacing bad hardware? What about configuration and maintenance of the virtual environment? Vcenter doesn't patch itself and you would be shocked at how many people don't know what mpio is. What about HA? A few servers requires N+1, so now you are at 4. Multiply all of this by two for a DR site. Once you add the colocation costs to the infrastructure and manpower overhead it quickly becomes more cost effective to use the cloud.
surveysaysno@reddit
I've done the math. If your footprint is larger than 40 physical servers your 5 yr colo costs is about 18 months in the cloud, including dedicated techs.
All the efficiencies of the cloud can be can on prem other than dynamic scaling (although some vendors do offer stupid on demand/rental options).
Test-NetConnection@reddit
I meant virtual servers. 100 virtual servers, 4 physical hosts. There is no way a colocation facility with a full VMware environment, redundant nexus switches, a SAN, redundant PDU's, dedicated firewalls, and everything else that goes along with that maintaining that infrastructure is cheaper than the cloud.
surveysaysno@reddit
Why are you accounting for DR for the on prem but not Azure workload? Does Azure not have outages?
Also DR to cloud is one of the use cases that make sense. So you only need to pay data replication before invoking DR.
Test-NetConnection@reddit
Azure DR is as simple as replicating virtual machines to another region and you only pay for storage as long as the replicas are deallocated. The cost is negligible.
snugge@reddit
File shares in the cloud sucks if you need decent performance though.
Teguri@reddit
It's spectacular if you want to throw money at making something available more in different regions even, or if you want to test a small load and don't yet have any infra.
notarealaccount223@reddit
But if your growth and scaling needs are small or non-existent you get all the cost without much benefit.
whatdoido8383@reddit
This guy clouds.
lilpimmpin@reddit
Silicon Valley reference?
BadCorvid@reddit
This. I'm actually working on getting a subsidiary out of the cloud (spit Azure spit) and into our data centers because of costs.
On prem, if you shut a VM down, it stops costing you anything. In the cloud, it still costs you for the provisioning, IPs, SGs, and other nickel and dime stuff.
Viharabiliben@reddit
That’s assuming your applications are scalable by adding servers. Often more servers equals more licensing co$t.
ZeeroMX@reddit
Last time I was talking with a previous customer about their difficulties with their cloud project, I asked him when was the last time the utilities did a reduction in price for the services they provide, he told me "never".
I said yeah, it's the same here, and if you buy a new big TV, a new and bigger AC or a new and better Soundsystem, you will increase your bill too.
PlainTrain@reddit
You can also shift expenses from capital to operating which might have tax advantages.
darkodo@reddit
In some cases capex can apply to things like reserved instances but it depends on the auditors lol
beren12@reddit
Doesn’t matter is the losses outweigh the savings
Existential_Racoon@reddit
Yep, my typical answer is availability and scalability
twodashgrain@reddit
I keep saying at work that the cloud is a money making endeavor, not a money saving one.
Tulpen20@reddit
Aside from scalability, I've always likened The Cloud to a Yacht with regards to it being a money-pit that you need to keep shoveling money into.
turdfurby@reddit
The only thing cloud migration brings is identifying VMs that are no longer in use. You would see the same savings migrating to other data centers. All it does is help identify waste. Too bad all the hype is move to the cloud and save money. It should be clean up your inventory and save money.
Calm-Show-9606@reddit
I am retired, I ended my career with a company that had a pretty good IT department. Co plants minimum, upgrades and requests for assistance handled promptly. New compa y bought us out and promptly laid all but 2 IT and I as manager told I had 6 months to maintain old system, they were bringing in a contractor to transition to cloud with contractor handling g maintenance. I was to have 0 involvement with new system and not answer any employee questio s about it. After 6 months I was out the door with a temper contract to remotely handle the remnants of old system. Contract specified all contact with me was to be through the new plant manager. 6 months later all contact with me ceased. Until a few mo ths later they absolutely needed some data from old system and nobody knew how to even start it, they had shredded my notes I left. I signed a hefty contract to extract the data. Took me 1 hour and contract specified 100 hours minimum. I did not tell them how lo g it took.
daddyrabbit78@reddit
I worked for a company that had several dozen satellite offices and over 5k employees. When it came time to make that decision, the only thing they moved to the cloud was the email, individual storage (akin to Dropbox/OneDrive), and maybe two services that weren’t essential (like a company-wide file server). They poured millions into three redundant data centers instead. The services outlived the guys who installed it. 😂
sryan2k1@reddit
Usually it's a several year cycle of "This is going to save so much money" to "Why is this costing so much more money?" to "Put it all back!"
The fact that you (they) have managed to also make the performance go to shit is quite the feat.
willwork4pii@reddit
I used to say I’ll buy the raspberry pi to replace the fucking 1 core VM with 4GB RAM that they’d try to spin up for me Initially at a job about 5 years ago.
I eventually abandoned it an ran the software on a Lenovo tiny I put under my desk. Gone 4 years. Bet it’s still there. And I bet they’re still paying for that VM.
Michichael@reddit
No, that's just a feature of the cloud. Latency sensitive apps tend to notice that the clouds durable, not fast or cheap.
bdanmo@reddit
Right. The cloud is somewhere, not necessarily everywhere. Cloudflare is the one provider that’s really good with automatic (and cost friendly) edge nodes, but for the most part people are selecting and sticking with a region (and therefore the literal datacenter location serving that region) and hopefully backing up in a second location. If they have customers all over the country or world, they need replicate their service in cloud datacenters in all those locations and multiply their spend accordingly.
Teguri@reddit
If you need redundancy, design with cloud infra in mind, and are willing to pay for it, it's great.
bdanmo@reddit
That also assumes competency and buy-in from executive leadership, particularly the CFO, to whom the CIO often reports. 🥲
cpz_77@reddit
Which is something else that never made much sense to me. why tf would IT report up through a CFO who knows literally nothing about the department under them. And yet, that’s the same situation at my company right now.
IT not being considered a first class citizen of a business is the root of a lot of these problems. If companies accepted that IT today is a critical piece of any non-trivial business and not a “cost center” that just provides a “nice to have” service, then the business could be planned more accordingly around it and a lot of the resulting decisions and action plans would probably make a lot more sense (including being able to properly plan for cost whether that be in the cloud or onprem).
When it’s viewed as something that “is nice to have but not a core part of our business, it’s just a cost center that we need to make sure we control the spend on”…and thus having IT report up through the CFO….thats a big part of what leads to these dumbass decisions IMO.
And the worst part is, there’s more than a few IT leaders who agree with this viewpoint 🤦♂️ which is a large part of the reason the situation hasn’t gotten any better (and probably won’t until that old way of thinking totally cycles out of the workforce).
project2501a@reddit
"let's do bioinformatics in the cloud!!!!"
"What do you mean bioinformaticians save every output as a file and they open 1000 files for 4 seconds then delete them?????"
OldschoolSysadmin@reddit
Ugh flashbacks thanks for that. Bioinformaticians do not write efficient code in my experience.
Zealousideal-War6372@reddit
Beegfs can handle the short read / billions of tiny files needed to support bioinformatics as written by biologists with a computer and AI
RikiWardOG@reddit
Ha my brother works for schrödinger. We joke about the shit show under the hood all the time. I get it though. Asking someone to be fluent in both high level science and be able to architect and code really well and also stay on top of tech debt and not just get stuck in old applications etc is asking A LOT and then be able to also explain this to the C suite so they don't make dumb decisions, good fucking luck
project2501a@reddit
I am crying over SPAdes right now. A pox on their house.
Chellhound@reddit
Stares in having had to transmit/store/load CT scans 50,000 4kb greyscale images each.
project2501a@reddit
try beegfs but you will need a reliable data mover
Teguri@reddit
"How many IOPS you need?"
"All of them."
project2501a@reddit
"Yeah, the compute nodes have all PCIe 5.0 and 400gb infiniband"
"Here are the PCIe 8.0 standards and the 1TB infiniband"
winky9827@reddit
"Hey wait! You promised you wouldn't kill anybody!"
"Trust me /grin"
cpz_77@reddit
lol yes. Cost to performance ratio generally seems terrible in the cloud, in my experience anyway. Anything you try to do in any sort of “cost-friendly tier” never has acceptable performance .
aitorbk@reddit
Almost no tiers have acceptable performance. You need to accept "NVM" storage that is almost as slow as rotating HDDs and are rented as rare commodities prices. And memory that has the bus saturated, plus slow cores.
If all of that is acceptable, then go ahead. You can design around it, but if you can, a 15+ years old server could also run your loads. So just have multiple nodes and decommissioning of servers be done on hardware actually failing from age.
winky9827@reddit
As a smaller company with specialized needs, the real cloud savings for us was the ability to ramp up and down as needed. We're in the promotional business, so a lot of our apps are busy for like... 5% of the time. In years past (pre-2010'ish), we had to provision capacity for burst at the expense of idle resources most of the time. Cloud mitigated that for us.
It goes without saying that if you need performance more than N% of the time, fixed (mostly on-site) resources are going to be more competitively priced.
SirHaxalot@reddit
Going to "the Cloud" doesn't mean that you can expect any piece of shit company to magically perform miracles... because that is what I assume must be going on if you are having things presented as NVMe perform as mechanical disks. Noticeable performance problems on raw compute also indicates you're trying to use some shitty provider with probably old hardware and overprovisioned as hell.
Not like owning your own on-prem makes you immune either. Used to work at a place that had a very problematically overprovisioned virtualization environment showing a lot of the issues you describe. Especially when it came to storage performance because someone cheaped out and/or belived too much in automatic tiering of the storage system.
Unexpected_Cranberry@reddit
I'm so happy my company said "ok, let's not do that then" when we did a POC moving a finance application to Azure, including database, app servers and VDIs and found that even with extravagantly priced high tier VMs that would have cost more per month than a year's worth of running it on prem was still 10-15% slower than what we had on-prem.
And the only reason we did it was because previous leadership went "we're going to the cloud!" several years ago, and the database was a PITA to migrate to an Azure SQL instance and they really didn't want to have to move it back again.
Previous leadership was replaced when it turned out that just blindly going to the cloud significantly increased costs and reduced performance across the board.
The funniest thing to me is the argument about reducing personell cost. The hosting team is I think about 6 dudes managing three large datacenters across the globe as well as I don't know how many smaller sites. Cloud team is getting close to 100 people now...
jimicus@reddit
It's the same with any non-trivial business.
Yet it never stands up to the slightest bit of logical scrutiny:
So - unless it comes with a side-order of "moving all systems management to a low-cost country which can supply equally qualified, equally capable staff for a fraction the salary" - it doesn't make logical sense.
And there aren't very many low cost countries that can achieve this goal.
Unexpected_Cranberry@reddit
I can see it making sense for some things for a smaller organization. If you're small enough that managing your hosting is not a fulltime job, and you have a few other things like it, it can be close to impossible to find someone who can do all the things you need in order to motivate one FTE. Plus, you probably need to hire at least two people in case one of them needs to call in sick or gets hit by a bus. Outsourcing those things can make sense, as the outsourcing company can hire more people who can be specialized in doing those jobs for you as well as have redundant staff as they're filling out the position with hours from multiple customers.
But when you get to a certain size that it takes multiple FTEs to do things, then handling most things in-house makes sense.
jimicus@reddit
Absolutely. Plus a managed provider can hire specialists in a number of fields, so you don't wind up having to have someone who's a jack of all trades and a master of none.
Teguri@reddit
Cloud can be cost efficient if the load was designed with that in mind. That is VERY often not the case, and anything that just runs on top of a windows server is just another level of fucked too.
"Sure we'll migrate your legacy windows workload to the cloud, want to see what your bill will look like to run at a quarter the speed? ....Oh no that's not annual, that's monthly. :)"
anon-stocks@reddit
Yup, cloud is slow as shit, twice as many machines to get the same performance which slows down again within a year. As hardware costs go up, the more overloaded these shit boxes are.
whythehellnote@reddit
Since when?
My home pihole each has a better uptime than us-east-1, let alone the vrrp between them, and they aren't even on a UPS!
Cooleb09@reddit
Yup
Cloud is great, as long as everything is a webapp.
Teguri@reddit
Even then.... well at least webapps they can blame your ISP on their shitty provisioning.
cpz_77@reddit
We just completed this cycle with one of our critical workloads. In fact, we’ve now started it over again - “let’s move it to the cloud, part II”. Yeah, we’re making another attempt to move the same workload to the cloud and “do it right” this time. 🤦♂️
This entire time, through acquisition of all the tools that were necessary to do the first migration out to the cloud and back, some of which we never got rid of for various reasons, the amount of money we’ve been spending on an ongoing basis on this workload has vastly outweighed what we were originally spending on it with the old on-prem solution we had. Which was extremely capable btw, yes a little pricey in some ways but an industry leading software that all users loved and knew how to use properly, and we’ve now traded it for an alternative platform that ultimately accomplishes the same things but in a very convoluted manner, with a huge learning curve for users, its been a shit ton of work to do these migrations (thousands of hours spread across not many people) and the kicker of it all is - we didn’t even accomplish the original goal of saving money.
Everybody I think just got so wrapped up in the individual aspects of the project and “getting it done” they all lost sight of the fact that our monthly spend related to this had blown way past the old amount we were spending long ago. And/or just forgot (or perhaps never really understood in the first place) that the whole original point of this project was to save money, not to just move to a new solution just for fun lol… Not to mention, leadership turned over multiple times during this process including many of the drivers behind the original proposal (who were all non-IT people, btw).
Immortal_Tuttle@reddit
You are looking at it from sysadm perspective. Cloud is opex, that could be billable to customer. On prem is just purchasing, which can't be billed to customer. The former is an exercise for accounting and sales. The latter is money sink.
That's how our regional VP explained it to me over drinks at the party after our company valuation crossed one billion euros. And this was the second time in that decade when I heard this. First time was purchasing an Itanium server for 20k vs renting them for 20k per month for a project valued at 500k (compatibility testing, don't ask). Project had a profit margin of 55%, so imagine panic when it was delayed by 6 months in total. But billable to customer is always always better than purchasing on prem (for some convoluted reason).
cpz_77@reddit
Yeah I’ve heard the whole opex vs Capex thing , I’ll admit I’m not a finance guy nor a businessman nor do I want to be (and not wanting to spend my day working with budgets is one reason I’ve chosen not to become a manager and instead stay in the tech realm as my career progresses), so yeah I probably don’t “understand” all the aspects of that.
I guess it maybe depends a lot on the business model but wouldn’t all costs the company incurs to produce their product ultimately be rolled up into the cost we charge our customers for whatever service we provide? That would seem logical anyway.
To me I just try to use common sense - sure, there could be an advantage to paying a little every month rather than a lot up front. Totally get that. The upfront investment of an onprem hardware refresh is expensive, yes. Cloud seems enticing at first because you “only have to pay X amount per month and that’s it - they take care of everything else for you!”. I get it.
But when you end up paying as much in 2 months as the entire hardware refresh to support this workload cost (which will last 5-7 years), it just plain doesn’t make sense. IMO it doesn’t take some fancy finance or business degree to figure that out.
If I had a similar situation in my home finances - pay one time fee $30K for this thing I need, that I know works well, and be good for 5-7 years, or pay $15K a month, every month, forever, for something that gets the same result but is way more cumbersome to use ….. it would be a pretty easy decision for me, assuming I could come up with the up front cost. But if I couldn’t then I don’t know how long id be able to sustain the other option anyway so it’s kind of a moot point in that case.
Thats pretty much exactly what our company did except we chose the 15K/month option and then a year later ended up spending the money on the hardware/licensing to bring it back anyway.
aitorbk@reddit
Because they aren't very smart imho. You can also rent usage of your own server. Proof of it is, well, aws doing it. As for opex vs capex, that is true, due to wrong incentives and again not smart ppl just doing the valuation of companies like that. This is how we get western companies being unprofitable due to layers and layers of external contracting while vertical chinese car companies, for example, can actually innovate and sell better products at lower costs, they aren't doing so many of these ridiculous things.
Immortal_Tuttle@reddit
Oh I have a perfect response to that. I pointed exactly that once. As a response I got that yes, but also there is a maintenence cost that would have to be billed by core IT team to us. So our department would have to pay monthly for the server anyway. So what's the difference if we pay external company or our own IT? it's still a cash flowing out of our department budget...
I'm not kidding.
RikiWardOG@reddit
JFC when the people who hold the purse strings know absolutely nothing about what we do and refuse to listen to the people that do or try to learn the bare minimum to have a real conversation.
Teguri@reddit
Do they not think the same admins aren't having to uh.... admin the cloud server?
ManyHatsAdm@reddit
All IT spend, whether cloud or on-prem, opex or capex, is billed to the customer. Where else would the revenue to pay for and maintain it come from? What is probably true is that some businesses might be able to more tightly bind specific resources in the cloud to specific customers or projects, and their might be some fancy pants accounting going on which makes opex more attractive, but ultimately the customer pays for everything.
Immortal_Tuttle@reddit
You are preaching to the choir here 😁 On the other hand I remember in 2008 we went purchase freeze for some reason (due to market circumstances our competition bankrupted and we were basically controlling the market) because others went that way. We increased our revenue by 70% at that time. However as there was a purchase freeze, we could only RENT machines for a crapton more. On closing the next financial year report said that because we went from purchasing to renting we saved so much money it increased revenue (no, not profit - revenue). The very same report failed to mention that due to renting cost the profit stayed on the same level. We spent on renting around 5 times more that year than if we would just buy those machines. Purchase freeze, recession, something something...
Paul-Ski@reddit
wtf do you mean the cheaper $product we've spent 3 years migrating to has less features/functionality?!?!?
ClassicTBCSucks93@reddit
But, but, the sales engineer during the demo said their SaaS all in one solution had ‘AI capabilities’ but failed to mention that just meant a glorified chatbot that is wrong or misleading ~75% of the time. All C-levels ears perked up when they heard AI and the dotted line was signed. After go-live it was a shitshow, everyone hated it, people quit, and it’s all IT’s fault!
Teguri@reddit
Mmmmm, off brand IBM cloud hosting.
AZSystems@reddit
I have questions too. Look at your ISP and internals, if migration went as planned and data is there, User and Infrastructure are more logs to find out why performance isn't matching.
Teguri@reddit
They odder a whopping 1GB pipe between servers, only the finest of last decade's mid trier infrastructure.
P_Jamez@reddit
more expensive*
krazykat357@reddit
initial sales pitch was cheaper, reality was more expensive
Viharabiliben@reddit
And is slower and more difficult to monitor.
RikiWardOG@reddit
I hate that it's always about money and that's why it always fails. Good leadership and people who give a shit want a good product and the product should come first and the customers will follow. As soon as it becomes all about saving as much as possible, the company is doomed
Comfortable_Place465@reddit
The "if it ain't broke, fix it till it is" approach. Killing a 35% profit margin cash cow because someone needed to justify their cloud strategy is peak corporate IT. We actually used Erp System Comparison tool to avoid exactly this kind of forced migration disaster... knockout criteria caught the performance issues before we lit money on fire..
Teguri@reddit
I've had people verbally fight me over trying to take non native ERP loads to the cloud, but I have yet to have someone give me a compelling reason when I start breaking out the pricing tools.
I'd get a bonus for migrating them too, but I'm not about that.
Teguri@reddit
Minimum recommended provisioning leads to minimum user experience, provisioning properly in the first place would usually take cloud out as an option if they're doing it to cut costs (now if they're doing it for redundancy.... that's another story)
krazul88@reddit
"Normally companies aren't that stupid..." - I don't know where you are or where you've spent all your time, but I'd sure like to visit this mystical place and see these mystical companies.
Kraeftluder@reddit
In my experience, performance is what sets onPrem very much apart from cloud. If I want it to be fast and low latency; my local PURE is where it needs to live.
gward1@reddit
LOL
Vichingo455@reddit
Migrating everything to the cloud is the road to migrate your corporate to the trash.
phillyfyre@reddit
The "cloud" is not some magical space where servers don't exist....
The "cloud" in reality, is someone else's computer , with access to your corporate data, and that someone else does not have your best interests at heart.
The idea!
"We're going to get rid of the data center, the people who maintain it , and move everything to the cloud".
The reality! "We're paying too much for compute time on our cloud instance, no matter where we move it to the costs have exceeded that of when we had our own datacenter and equipment, what can we do to reduce costs?"
The management was sold on "cloud is good and cheap and fast" (nothing is all three). What they found out was it was "hype, hyperbole, and horrendous".
MyLegsX2CantFeelThem@reddit
Yeah well try being told that you’re moving a large mass of your organization, data, and apps to GCC High cloud, right after losing half your staff over all departments ( help desk, project managers, engineering, infrastructure, info security, and networking completely gutted) and with no one who knows Azure or cloud anything.
New boss dude was hired on three months ago. The guy is delulu and still expects the day to day “emergencies” (ie let me look good to the VP boys ) to all be number one priority, while we start this massive project.
We have one info security generalist left, and he’s about to have a stroke. Fighting those vulnerabilities AND he just got told he gets to be a big part of this cloud project.
Oh and cherry news on top? New boss man just informed us that he is gunning for us to be CMMC certified in a couple months.
I’m still wrapping my head around this all.
vogelke@reddit
https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-cloud-fedramp-cybersecurity-government
Highlights
"Cloud First": To move federal agencies to the cloud, the government created a program known as FedRAMP, whose job was to ensure the security of new technology.
Security Breakdown: ProPublica found that FedRAMP authorized a Microsoft product called GCC High to handle sensitive government data, despite years of concerns about its security.
Potential Conflict of Interest: The government relies, in part, on third-party firms to vet cloud technology, but those firms are hired and paid by the company being assessed.
MyLegsX2CantFeelThem@reddit
This does not surprise me.
fnordhole@reddit
Can't uoh just... automate that?
Or have AI do it?
MyLegsX2CantFeelThem@reddit
Looks around. Automate how exactly? And who is gonna automate that? We are running super thin, and this project is already fraying at the seams in its infancy. We just don’t have the gas to get this junker out of the driveway, without the lug nuts starting to fall off.
It is bad-bad-bad!
_Born_To_Be_Mild_@reddit
It's a cycle. Think of it as job security.
steveatari@reddit
Nah more like this now subsidiary is in danger of being shuttered.
Serious_Johnson@reddit
Yep, senior management may take the view that “IT is shit” so may as well go all in with cloud, technical staff will leave and that puts the company in downward spiral that is difficult to reverse.
aprimeproblem@reddit
This is exactly the reason why I dislike people who are keen on saying “Cloud first”.
Xattle@reddit
Can you make a case study of this I can send to my top levels? They're convinced on cloud only when we're already having bandwidth issues... We all forsee it going the same way as yours except with layoffs because cloud requires "less upkeep". They'll temporarily save in labor only to increase hosting costs by an order of magnitude.
Dank_Turtle@reddit
I’ve migrated most of my clients to full cloud. It works great if the migrations are done right but you don’t just move your on prem to the cloud, you have to reevaluate every aspect of everything and replace solutions where it makes sense. But being cloud only has been nothing but awesome and on call has been quiet since I’ve stopped managing servers on prem
Pale-Price-7156@reddit
This is the answer. If you aren't willing to refactor, rebuild and remove legacy apps, lift and shift to the cloud is usually a poor choice.
Teguri@reddit
And the problem with most ERP solutions is, they aren't rewriting and licensing you cloud native versions. Most of the time their own SAAS solutions aren't even written cloud native.
Never mind that very few places benefit from ERP in the cloud.
Angelworks42@reddit
Elucian Banner being like this :).
Teguri@reddit
Banner and Colleague here..... yeah :D
Angelworks42@reddit
Oh colleague wow you have it twice as bad. Used to use that at a community college I worked at - ran on unidata on hpux. Still the only itanium computer I've ever seen in the flesh.
Xattle@reddit
This is the other part we keep trying to tell them but all they want to do is lift and shift then deal with reevaluation some time later. I'd be totally fine if we were doing it right.
jimicus@reddit
Let 'em.
A manager's role - and this is true all the way up the chain - involves making decisions with consideration given to needs that aren't even disccussed with people lower down. By the time you get to the top level, there's so many other things involved that they wouldn't deign to put the time into explaining it to the plebs at the bottom.
Now, many of those other things might be complete nonsense, but they're there.
ilyas-inthe-cloud@reddit
I have seen this movie before. The failure usually starts when a cloud migration gets sold as a cost-cutting exercise instead of an operating model change. Same apps, same assumptions, same support model, but now with new latency, egress, and failure modes layered on top.
Keep the screenshot. Keep notes on the incidents, performance regressions, and warnings that got ignored. Once customers start leaving, leadership gets very interested in rewriting the timeline. I would absolutely get your resume moving, but I would also document everything while it is still fresh.
SleepOnTheRoofDaily@reddit
Tactical dot
ontheprowl@reddit
PayPal (eBay) or Macromedia (Adobe)?
ilyas-inthe-cloud@reddit
Seen this movie a few times. The bad assumption is usually "cloud will be cheaper" instead of asking what problem the migration is actually solving.
If leadership forces a lift and shift on a profitable stable system, skips latency testing, under-sizes everything, and doesn't fund the people who have to operate it after cutover, you get exactly this. More spend, less performance, angrier customers.
firedrakes@reddit
I mean it's better then a company ( brought and close down later) that made fire wall software.... That never check there network if ftp to the Internet was open ... Which it was and there whole internal network to..... Which I found it was . When third party audit
impracticallybreddog@reddit
Koch industries did the same thing to GP. GP was very profitable and brought in tons of money. We invested heavily in new technologies to maximize productivity, safety and efficiency. In 2019 the smart Koch brother passed. Uncle chucky began replacing engineers with MBA lackeys within weeks. The amount of experience dropped from an average of 20 years to just 5. Moved most tech jobs overseas and people began dying, productivity fell, and many mills closed and American production went overseas. Couldn’t leave that mess fast enough.
racingthunder12@reddit
There's a crazy amount of inept leadership in enterprises across the world, and you wonder how they got there to begin with. If you can't start with identifying an opportunity and quantifying a solution and just go straight to 'lets use Cloud/AI/whatever' then that's a great path to failure. Map business requirements to what function needs to be done to meet those requirements, THEN lay the abstraction of technology on top of it, THEN abstract within the tech side for cost-benefit.
None of that was done, but obviously if they were buying your company it shows they didn't have the culture to do it themselves to begin with.
CaptainZhon@reddit
You can’t save money moving 1:1 workloads to the cloud. Our DBAs done fired themselves when they insisted the ERP solution needed 6 SQL Server - 6 databases each at 500gb or more. We got bought by a PE and the PE is merging our IT with another company. That company has an ERP Saas solution and just calculating the storage cost alone onprem vs saas- the storage cost alone is 4x more. Sorry guys i tried to tell you you didnt need six sql servers and 3TB of mostly empty DBs but hey im just a janitor what do i know?
bws7037@reddit
I laughed when our CIO said we were going to migrate as much as we possibly could in "the cloud". In front of everybody in that meeting, she called me on the carpet for my response, after she explained all of the benefits and couldn't understand why I would react the way I did. This was 4 years ago (we were late to the cloud), and I explained that: 1) There would be no cost savings; 2) Performance would flat out suck; 3) Fault tolerance wasn't there, even with the redundancy; 4) The cloud providers would make countless promises and grossly underdeliver and 5) If we were smart, even though we're dead set on leveraging "the cloud", we'd prepare an exit strategy, even if we didn't use it for several years.
With the lone exception of our home built generative AI, the performance of every other single app we moved up into the cloud has sucked. I mean it stinks on ice. Also, I can't help but chuckle about the reaction she had when she received notice of the first $300,000 monthly bill for our first Azure tenant. Granted, our VAR misconfigured a few things and after about 8 months they were finally able to reduce it down to $170K. But she still completely loses her shit when either the Microsoft or AWS ecosystems suffer service interruptions and we have 15,000 people pretty much sitting on their hands until service is restored. Circling back to performance again, things got exponentially worse when some genius came up with the grand idea of backing up the remaining on prem servers to cloud storage (about 80 petabytes, give or take). Even with (3) 10 Gb connections to our ISP, backups are literally running all of the time and at the expense of other production traffic. I'm begging for more bandwidth to the internet but they keep telling me that it's cost prohibitive. So, when people start blaming the network I just shake my head and laugh.
GeoSystemsDeveloper@reddit
What source of cloud did you move to?
Unlikely_Total9374@reddit
Oracle everything😍😍
GeoSystemsDeveloper@reddit
Ah, then that's your problem right there ...
MyLegsX2CantFeelThem@reddit
Looks around. Automate how exactly? And who is gonna automate that? We are running super thin, and this project is already fraying at the seams in its infancy. We just don’t have the gas to get this junker out of the driveway, without the lug nuts starting to fall off.
It is bad-bad-bad!
Bortisa@reddit
I am in the same boat. Will see if the company has enough money to survive this.
TheStixXx@reddit
My employer based its decision of going to the cloud... on the calculations provided by the cloud provider. Spoiler: we're not making any savings. (And the migration isn't over yet)
No_Promotion451@reddit
As long as it doesn't cause a pay cut...
Hebrewhammer8d8@reddit
C level time is money, but what they mean is not my time, because my time is the utmost important. When I say jump you say how high.
ZaradimLako@reddit
Pay cut? More like a promotion to customer.
Fuzzy_Dude@reddit
Customer? In THIS economy?!
fuzzentropy2@reddit
Promotion to window shopper.
jbourne71@reddit
Oh, it will.
GardenWeasel67@reddit
...
f4il_better@reddit
Maybe go hybrid and go for HPE greenlake?
DaftPump@reddit
How u/n3rdyone exit interview will go.
THEM: Why you leaving?
u/n3rdyone drops off printout of badidea.jpg on the desk and walks out.
ranhalt@reddit
rein in, with reins, the leashes you control animals with, like reindeer.
MyWifesBoyfriend_@reddit
Cloud migration isn't the issue. It's the people migrating it.
Hi_Im_Ken_Adams@reddit
Was about to say this.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with migrating to the cloud. The fault lies in legacy programs that are not optimized for the cloud along with bad planning.
falconcountry@reddit
Some of these legacy programs are making companies tens or hundreds of millions a year and the dev retired in 2007
xCharg@reddit
Yeah but the very same legacy programs, when ran in vms in "the cloud" as there's no other way to run them, while making same tens or hundreds of millions a year will also drain comparable amount of money in cloud bills.
All while cost next to nothing when running onprem.
Teguri@reddit
IME, a lot of these legacy programs can buy the hardware and vendor support needed to run them each month with the monthly cloud bill.
xCharg@reddit
Comment I was replying to was talking about "and dev retired in 2007" case. So vendor support is out of question there. But yeah if there's some extra licensing involved it's even worse.
Teguri@reddit
One of the products the devs have all left (we have one) or died, but the company still supports it and we're suspecting every fix that comes out is vibe coded off shore. Still mostly 90s legacy code too.
l0st1nP4r4d1ce@reddit
Hey, I had to deal with that today. I'm sending them a substantial invoice for EOL software support.
When it works, it works like a champ and stitches a ton of workflows together into a reliable 'near real time' dashboard.
When it breaks, the business basically comes to a halt. I've advised them several times to figure something else out. They'd rather pay me than pay for the substantial overhaul.
bbbbbthatsfivebees@reddit
I'm dealing with this tomorrow. We'll be sending them an invoice for 12 hours of labor billed at double our normal rate because they ignored our recommendation of "This will be a problem in 6 months if it's not fixed immediately", and now 6 months have passed and it's a problem.
Every single time we have to get the vendor involved, and every single time they run into mega-issues because they're running unsupported EOL versions of software in a way that the vendor hasn't supported in more than 10 years. So we shoulder the responsibilities of dealing with an already normally unresponsive and terrible vendor by begging them to assist when needed, as this piece of software going down for even 15 minutes is enough to cause $100k worth of losses.
Thankfully, they did agree to at least entertain the idea of a proper upgrade! ... But not before Q4 2026 or Q1 2027...
l0st1nP4r4d1ce@reddit
The economic reality is still hitting the balance sheets.
Unless something significantly changes (AI market crash?) lots of companies are kicking the can on required updates.
bbbbbthatsfivebees@reddit
I mean, our recommendation was not an expensive proposal, it was one that anyone who is reasonable would make given the recommendations from the vendor as to how the software should be run in modern environments.
Our recommendation was:
No new hardware, only decommissioning dated hardware and transplanting an extremely overpowered box from a branch to the main office and using that as the only application server.
So instead tomorrow, I'll be implementing a temporary workaround to deal with a problematic branch office server as an emergency project that will be a temporary solution to a long-term issue.
I get that it's sometimes a budget thing, but in this case it's not, so if you're going to deny our recommendations that we TOLD YOU are going to cause problems shortly, don't get mad at us when we have to remediate...
Gabelvampir@reddit
And of course that temporary workaround will stay in place for years and years?
bbbbbthatsfivebees@reddit
Hopefully not! We do actually have long-term plans to resolve this as long as they're receptive to it, we just need their approval to actually do it. It'll take a whole weekend and then they're good for the next 5-6 years.
Gabelvampir@reddit
I wish you best of luck, hopefully the right decision will be made.
ReadyAimTranspire@reddit
As is tradition
timbotheny26@reddit
Retired is better than dead at least since you could theoretically still reach out to them. Although if they're dead you could try your luck with a seance I guess.
Ok_Enthusiasm_758@reddit
The United States Air Force will use dos time clock units to track time still in remote bases
TheMagecite@reddit
We have another country attempting what we did migrating to the cloud. It doesn't matter how many times I tell them we got all our savings and redundancy by changing how we operate and swap things with microservices and only focusing on our core they somehow think just doing a lift and shift of every server will achieve the same thing.
The bills have gone up astronomically and they think they are going to settle.
Cooleb09@reddit
Migrating to the cloud when running such legacy programs is the business requirement is poor decision making.
dinominant@reddit
There is nothing inherently wrong with the legacy programs that are working. The fault lies in the cloud that is not optimized to support legacy programs.
Or rather the fault lies in the philosophy of forcing the entire architecture into one shape that doesn't compute.
Verukins@reddit
This x 1billion.
Not everything fits the cloud model for various reasons.... this doesnt make cloud bad.... it makes people that try to make everything fit the cloud model fucking morons.
n3rdyone@reddit (OP)
but cloud so shiny, must have :D
chandleya@reddit
X86 runs the same in the cloud as it does on prem. Even C++ compiled in 2004. Odds are your cloud hardware will have better performing X86.. debatable if the IO is better.
Most “impossible” failures stem from poor observability and poor skill. It takes skill to realize you can’t see and it takes effective tooling to see.
FarmboyJustice@reddit
As always, the fault lies in foolishly assuming that one knows best without having all the facts. Neither the cloud nor the legacy software are to blame for this.
ImCaffeinated_Chris@reddit
As a cloud architect, I fully agree. If I didn't tell them it wasn't cloud friendly and how much it would cost annually, I wouldn't be doing my job. Lift and shift to the cloud without refactoring is bad.
Stinkles-v2@reddit
Lmao hard disagree. We're in the middle of moving to the cloud and while it works great for some things it's absolute garbage for others. I work for a company that has a call center and we switched from a locally hosted service to a third party PaaS and it has been an unmitigated disaster.
MyWifesBoyfriend_@reddit
Yeah because some bottom tier call center can't get it to work, it must be a bad move.
Stinkles-v2@reddit
Hey man I don't need to convince you. I've been up and down the problem and I've definitely proven it's on them. If you go to a retarunt and the service is terrible do you blame yourself?
deuce_413@reddit
Boom, that's the answer. If you lift and shift your on-prem environment into the cloud, it's going to cost more money. The whole purpose is to migrate correctly, refactor applications if needed to save cost, and improve performance. If you have the wrong people or thought process it's a bad idea.
SageAudits@reddit
Nobody said moving to the cloud was going to save you money. It’s generally more money. But all those 999s with availability are pretty nice.
Teguri@reddit
"We want to be in AWS East1, that's where all the new stuff is"
Okay, perhaps not so many nines
wbrd@reddit
I like being able to spin up whatever I want without having to wait months for servers to get racked.
l0st1nP4r4d1ce@reddit
Love being able to spin up addl resources on the fly.
aitorbk@reddit
You can also do that on prem, for less. Just have spare capacity on your virtualization farm.
l0st1nP4r4d1ce@reddit
True. But a lot of smaller businesses (most of my customer base) cannot afford/want a dedicated staff to manage them.
It's a nitch I like to serve, but it comes with challenges most enterprise and F500 businesses never have to think about.
aitorbk@reddit
Smaller businesses should be on the cloud. The same way a new shop should rent the space, not build a mall.
l0st1nP4r4d1ce@reddit
That is a myopic view of their needs.
I offer it to clients. I advise of them of the costs and benefits. But ripping up workflow and procedure, especially customer facing (who like what they have available), is not a palatable option for them.
So I charge them appropriately, and they know why I charge what I do.
Transparency is must when doing this type of work.
SageAudits@reddit
It’s glorious
ReputationNo8889@reddit
You can have IaC for on prem as well
SageAudits@reddit
I don’t know if I can spin up 100 machines exactly the same but sure if on orem is big enough. Cloud it’s just how big your wallet is hehe
ReputationNo8889@reddit
Yes true that
par_texx@reddit
It saves you time. Lots and lots of time, and time = money
randalzy@reddit
I'd put an "study if it even makes sense" step first. Maybe the on-prem environment is super fine as is and all the scalability of the world is not going to help in any metric other than "we moved!"
Landscape4737@reddit
It’s frustrating that people who look after on-prem and cloud who say on-prem is a better solution, often get overridden by corporate glossy magazines. It happened where I worked many years ago, that company is now half the size and they now have double the number of IT staff, yet their end users IT solutions are 99% the same. The various cloud services prove to have many more outages too, lol. As predicted.
ReputationNo8889@reddit
Either way its bad. You refactor to your cloud provider of choice to save money. Now you are 100% vendor locked in because Azure cant be moved to Google or Amazon without basically doing it all over again and migrating data (With egress fees beeing as high as they are not really feasable). So you have no choice but to bend over when they inevitably start to increase prices.
andrewsmd87@reddit
This. We went fully to the cloud over the course of a couple years because it makes sense for us and we had minimal issues with it.
harrythefurrysquid@reddit
y'all might enjoy reading this. It has a great deal to say about the way Azure is engineered.
https://isolveproblems.substack.com/p/how-microsoft-vaporized-a-trillion
TL;DR: It's not all about the customers, and very much about the way the cloud services have been built.
enterprisedatalead@reddit
This is a classic example of where the problem isn’t really “cloud vs on prem,” it’s how the decision was made and executed. From what you described, it sounds like a lift and shift without understanding the application behavior, which almost always leads to performance issues and user backlash. A lot of people in similar situations have pointed out that legacy systems built for low latency environments don’t translate well to cloud without redesign
In my experience, these meltdowns usually come from a combination of leadership pushing cost or strategy decisions without technical grounding, and teams not being given the time or resources to refactor properly. When migration is treated as a checkbox instead of a transformation, you end up with higher costs, worse performance, and frustrated users, exactly what you’re seeing. The painful part is that the warning signs are usually visible early, but ignored.
Do you think this can still be stabilized with targeted fixes and partial redesign, or has it already reached the point where rollback or hybrid approach is the only realistic option?
robotbeatrally@reddit
To be honest we have a lot of those systems and we've been making them work 1 by 1 at my place (we were about a half dozen 1000 person sized companies that were all bought by a venture capital firm). It's all working out pretty well just a lot of bugs and growing pains along the way the past few years. But i think we'll be more or less mostly done with everything in another year and a lot better for it.
We did have to get some specialized equipment/services/etc for some situations like that but you know....1 by 1 you tackle the problems.
the real issue with us is basically what you said but for every other dept. lol
JosephRW@reddit
I'm having the feeling AI is about to get a lot dumber if this comes to pass since there's been a noted history of various AI companies using services in various places to make things seem more intelligent than they actually are.
SomethingAbtU@reddit
Ditto for AI -- company leadership often salivate at these AI and cloud solutions and they never understnad how easily over-automation of putting all of your eggs in one basket or in someon else's basket (cloud computer) can turn bad quickly.
Graydargoingoff@reddit
Dealing with this right now. A new fancy AI tool just got demoed and I admit its SLICK, but I sit here shaking my fist at the clouds seeing the enshitification on the horizon.
ReadyAimTranspire@reddit
Demos are always slick, production not so much
Cmd-Line-Interface@reddit
isn't that the truth!!
Teguri@reddit
"ChatGPT, why are you spelled with an S in the name"
Graydargoingoff@reddit
If everything could just happen in a perfectly controlled test environment, I would be down with AI. But yeah, prod is where the wheels always seem to fall off.
timbotheny26@reddit
Just like how no plan survives contact with the enemy, no IT environment survives contact with the user(s).
Teguri@reddit
"Guys we licensed everyone for $AI_Tool and only 15% of you used it, you need to use AI more so we're not wasting money!"
ygtbfkm
fnordhole@reddit
"Why do you hate the future?"
jtgyk@reddit
I wonder how my old employer is doing after moving student and staff email to Azure. I was assured at the time that privacy would be ensured because the servers would be in Canada, but as it turns out, the US doesn't care where the servers are. If the IT company is American, the data is, too.
They probably have to pay a lot more now, and have no IT security protections against an insane US government. Oh well.
Tricky-Service-8507@reddit
Often if IT has bad leadership then usually c-levels are also. Can’t have one without the other usually.
-King-K-Rool-@reddit
Are you hosting on some janky homebrew cloud? None of those issues are prevalent in any of the major cloud providers.
sryan2k1@reddit
I'm guessing as part of the cost cutting they are way under sizing instances both in size and in quantity.
peeinian@reddit
Or just lift and shifting VMs to the cloud
sryan2k1@reddit
Nothing wrong with that but cost. If the instances are sized the same as their on prem sources they usually run better up there.
VishousDeelishous@reddit
Hah, tell that to my applications team who decided to run an odbc connection to the new db hosted in oci with their single threaded not batch home built program from 15 years ago. Also what the fuck is a progress database? Literally just shoot me.
north7@reddit
jfc
sryan2k1@reddit
Fair enough. Our Canadian subsidiary bought an accounting program that must have the server on the same network. We tried running it in our main production VMWare cluster 20 miles away in the US and all hell broke loose. According to support "The latency causes the database to miss/lose records"
Ugh.
databeestjegdh@reddit
Yep.
Anything over 3-5ms is already way too much for a App that performs direct database access imho.
sryan2k1@reddit
This isn't just a raw SQL server or whatever it's their own "server" with whatever DB they're using baked into it.
And while you'd expect latency to slow things down that's not what happened. It would silently discard transactions without telling the user and support said that was normal.
databeestjegdh@reddit
insert
no, oh god no meme here...
eww
BarracudaDefiant4702@reddit
Why so slow? What is that, different carriers at the locations? 15.905ms, that is what I would expect for around 500 miles. You shouldn't need dedicated fiber (would help), but you at least need a carrier that can guarantee something well under 5ms.
sryan2k1@reddit
Blame Canadian ISPs
mersault@reddit
I've worked in Canadian telco, and 61ms over 20 miles is not normal. Your WAN is fucked, but it's not 'cause we use maple syrup instead of glass for fiber. 20 years ago the standard consumer latency from Toronto to Vancouver was 40ms (each way, so 80ms round trip). Talk to your network people.
sryan2k1@reddit
I dunno man, blame Cogent's garbage routing.
sryan2k1@reddit
Going from Canada to the US it is.
Dolapevich@reddit
The case of the 500-mile email?
dVNico@reddit
this is a must read for those of you who haven’t heard of it.
dVNico@reddit
this is a must read for those of you who haven’t heard of it.
VishousDeelishous@reddit
What is it with ERP softwares and using these progress dbs? Was apprise just going around building these for every small to medium business? We're thankfully going through the painful process of getting off this shit to business central with ms dynamics. We'll see how it goes this fall.
databeestjegdh@reddit
You have my best wishes on the Progress database. We had our in-house ERP on it, and that was ok. But to get anything out of it with something other then the native app was terrible.
We had a ODBC driver for it, and the initial connect time was 0.5 second, fetching records was slow, there was no working function for number of results in query, just loop. And Progress allows storing values larger then the field length in the DB which will cause silent failures with truncated results.
I ended up performing queries on the 1st field in the table, count the number of results, and then the normal one and compare.
chalbersma@reddit
Flashbacks!
thegreatzombie@reddit
Progress not "postgres"? Or it this a whoosh for me and a joke I missed somewhere?
chalbersma@reddit
Oh no, there's a Progress Software company that made a bunch of software. I used to work at a local government that used a Win32 Financial Tracking tool they made that had a local flat file database that regularly went totally foobar. I spent a lot of time fixing the Progress database back in the way.
Dolapevich@reddit
I think the joke is that it is postgres but someone in the chain understood "progres".
wangston_huge@reddit
Meh.
If you're running LOB apps that were built for LAN latency and you now have 20ms round trips in an app that builds its representation of the data locally using a long series of poorly optimized queries instead of doing SQL views or something, you're in for a bad time.
If your Internet connection is iffy or incorrectly sized for the additional traffic and now your apps are subject to all the vagaries of your terrible Internet, you're in for a bad time.
In my MSP days I've been told to "cloud all the things," despite the fact that the Internet sucks and the LOB apps are poorly optimized garbage and had to work around it with RDP servers and remote apps.
It's not great.
AdElectronic1701@reddit
I actually did math, and said, going from 1 - 2 ms multiplied by 80 calls per transaction in the on premises environment to 40 ms multiplied by 80 calls would be slower , they said nah.
Opening_Ad7004@reddit
*Slaps side of HP Gen 10. This baby can hold 20 VMs
i_said_unobjectional@reddit
The main reason cloud migrations worked at all is because so many businesses had do much work from home transfers. When your workforce is distributed, then didtributed cloud apps work great.
DarraignTheSane@reddit
"I told you so" is the last thing you ever want to have to say in our line of work. Ultimately all you can do, is tell them so in the first place.
SamJam5555@reddit
"Look how much we'll save"
xzer@reddit
weird way to integrate but I don't put it past any decision maker somewhere.
JohnClark13@reddit
I would print out that screen shot and frame it in your cube/office
amang_admin@reddit
If I'm the IT Head, the opex and capex will be halved.
hankhalfhead@reddit
The behind these decisions take 100% percent of the credit for ‘savings’ and 0% of the blame for the cost overruns, degradation in operation, reduction in experience and impact to reputation.
BemusedBengal@reddit
"This year I reduced our IT costs by 100%! Thank you for the bonus, but I actually have to leave for the same position at another company."
iUsed2Bsomebody@reddit
a job is a job. let corporate make dumb choices all they want. we get paid to do the job, not worry about how the business is run
Coupe368@reddit
So they built up a mountain of technical debt and are surprised pikachu when it crushes them?
WRB2@reddit
Document document document. The increased number of call. Get emails from line managers about hours lost to the cloudiness.
Hardware has improved dramatically. Pull together a pilot rehoming program and see what the costs an hours lost are between the two.
It’s a business call, not technology folks. Our job is to accurately track and report the increases and savings.
Best of luck
JoeyMack47@reddit
They created job security for you! They create problems, then pay you to fix them!
firen777@reddit
More likely scenario. Bonus point if they look to AI for solution.
dreadpiratewombat@reddit
You can jump ship or be part of the solution. Fix the problems, refactor the workloads, get your finops on. They’re all skills relevant to the job market anyway so at least get some practical experience while you interview.
sryan2k1@reddit
You can't fix it, not until the people making the decisions get fired or leave
ms4720@reddit
True, but having the info ready and learning/polishing the skills needed to present it, finops, is not a bad thing to do.
Original_Working6127@reddit
Is what usually happens if they put a "manager" into IT leadership. They don't know/understand what is supposed to be their responsibility and refuse to listen to someone "below" them because the have that stupid masters degree which (to them) means they're litterally better than anyone at everything they do.
I still can't understand why companies don't get this. They pay a bunch of useless talkers nearely twice the salary of a normal IT manager while all they do is mess up the team/the spirit AND the productivity.
wireless82@reddit
oh please share the eventually edited screenshot. It could be immediately meme, al least in my office. I want it!!!!
VividVigor@reddit
My team can migrate a Ford F150 to the cloud with the driver in it. You probably should look for new work.
mandrack3@reddit
So who is going to get sued for intentional sabotage? I'm not sure people on that level might be so incompetent, sounds like the work of a corporate execution crew. Or some people will never understand that cloud is just someone else's computer lol, such people don't belong in leadership.
ukulele87@reddit
Cloud migration might or might not have been a bad decision.
But that decision its not what caused the issues, unless you think every cloud implementation equals constant outages and slowness, in which case you are just as wrong as the cloud evangelists.
Whatever you embarked on, was not done correctly, if you move from cloud to local and do a shit job shit will break too.
abofh@reddit
Six thumbs up is not consensus at a 1200 person company
skylinesora@reddit
I’d imagine the 6 thumbs up is the consensus of the entire technical staff that handled the project
n3rdyone@reddit (OP)
The entire IT department is 6 thumbs up
HoosierLarry@reddit
True but it was also more than six because most people don’t have the courage to speak out. The silent majority is real.
rickAUS@reddit
I was also probably a meeting of 20 or so from the OG company being told what is happening. Not a meeting with all 1200 staff. So that 6 thumbs is more relevant as it comes from people who needed to know this was happening and understood the implications of it
SethMatrix@reddit
The IT Dept may well be 3 people.
lazyfck@reddit
With 2 thumbs each
phpfiction@reddit
Go to HR to negociate a salary upgrade, sell even higher, they need you right now.
With that resolve the problems and be relax with the new salary.
FleshSphereOfGoat@reddit
Don’t forget the time your it staff looses with constantly reviewing and adepting to the plans and licensing changes that happen once a month and require big migration projects and trainings.
limlwl@reddit
Just hang in there. Ask for top position with top pay to fix the problem. If you can’t , maybe you’ll get a golden parachute
twolfhawk@reddit
Being told "oh the pay in that market is lower, you wont get 120k as a T 3 in an msp"
I want to strangle my managers....
twnznz@reddit
The first thing to do in any consolidation is KPI the people consolidating services on customer outcomes.
MonoChz@reddit
With any luck they’ll stop there.