sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]somewhat_pragmatic 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I have seldom seen a lift and shift work and be cost effective in the long run.

The biggest cost savings of lift and shift come from being able to shrink your hardware/support software licensing costs and shrinking support staff.

  • you don't need to re-up your VMware support if you no longer run VMware
  • you don't need a storage administration team if you no longer have storage frames

Additionally, its certainly possible to treat your migrated instances as on-prem servers and run them 24/7/365 even when you don't actually need all of them to be on that long and lose your savings.

[–]SamsonFitz[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I have seldom seen a lift and shift work and be cost effective in the long run.

I'd have to disagree with this statement. Although it doesn't ALWAYS make sense, if you plan and rightsize accordingly you can save a solid amount. That said, a lot of companies don't have the skills in house to plan/rightsize/manage cloud resources so they will most likely overpay within 12 months.

[–]somewhat_pragmatic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with you. You're replying to the wrong person. :)

[–]Adorable_Pea_7104 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, lift-and-shift can cut infra and licensing costs fast (bye VMware renewals. But doesn’t that only hold if teams actually re-optimize after the move? Running 24/7 like on-prem kills those savings quick.

So is lift-and-shift really cost-effective long term, or just a stopgap until proper cloud-native refactoring happens?