Those are the only 3 that matter at the top tier/enterprise class of infrastructure. Oracle could be considered as well for nuanced/specialized deployments that are (largely) Oracle DB heavy; but AWS is so far ahead of Azure and GCP from a tooling standpoint it’s not even worth considering the other two if AWS is on the table.
It’s so bad with other cloud providers that ones like Azure offers insane discounts on their MSSQL DB (basically “free”) licensing just to use them over AWS. Sometimes the cost savings are worth it, but you take a usability and infrastructure cost by using anything other than AWS.
I honestly, legitimately, wish there was some other cloud provider out there that could do what AWS can do, but they don’t exist. Anyone else is a pale imitation from a devops perspective. It sucks. There should be other real competitors, especially to the US based cloud companies as the US cannot be trusted anymore, but they just don’t exist without taking a huge hit in terms of tools, APIs, and reliability options, to AWS.
SMillerNL@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Scale, they need worldwide coverage.
mastodon.world/@Mer__edith/115445705126997025
boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
The big 3 also offer disgustingly fast interconnection. Google, Amazon and Microsoft lay their own undersea fiber for better performance.
If willing to sacrifice a bit of everything, OVH has North-American and European locations, as well as one in India, one in Singapore and one in Australia. They’re building a few more in India, one in Dubai, two in Africa, one in NZ and 3 in South America. Once they add a few more on top of those, that’s damn near worldwide coverage too. And OVH is a French company, so the US government has less leverage over it than Amazon.
Count042@lemmy.ml 22 hours ago
And yet a single availability zone in AWS caused an outage?
SMillerNL@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
Yes, because scale is not the same as redundancy.