Are you using multi-cloud solution as failover and more resilient way of keeping your system up ? Why I think it is almost terrible idea

If you are addressing cloud resilience through a belief that multi-cloud solution will solve the problem is not of much value.?

I don’t think it is a effective way of addressing risk by considering complete cloud provider can go down and switching over will save them for resilience.?

I do agree that there could be such catastrophic failure but let me try to explain the point with analogy

There could be, for instance, a bug in the control systems of airplanes from fill-in-the-blank manufacturer that could be simultaneously triggered at a particular time and cause all their airplanes to drop out of the sky simultaneously.?

But we don’t plan to make commercial airlines maintain backup planes from some other manufacturer in case it happens. Instead, we try to ensure that each plane is resilient in many ways — which importantly addresses the?most probable?forms of failure, which will be electrical or mechanical failures of particular components.

?

We should focus on making the components of our software more and more resilient.?

Note that while these outages can be multi-hour, they have generally been short enough that — given typical enterprise recovery-time objectives for disaster recovery, which are often lengthy — customers typically don’t activate a traditional DR plan. (Customers may take other mitigation actions, i.e. failover to another region, failover to an alternative application for a business process, and so forth.)

There are definitely some points to consider while using multi-cloud as well :

• Multi-cloud failover requires that you maintain full portability between two providers, which is a massive burden on your application developers.
• The basic compute runtime (whether VMs or containers) is not the problem, so OpenShift, Anthos, or other “I can move my containers” solutions won’t really help you. The problem is all the differentiators — the different network architectures and features, the different storage capabilities, the proprietary PaaS capabilities, the wildly different security capabilities, etc.

To summarize the huge cost and complexity of a multi-cloud implementation is effectively a negative distraction from what you should?actually?be doing that would improve your uptime and reduce your risks, which is making your applications resilient to the types of failure that are actually probable.?

?Please note these are my personal views and there are definitely some problems that can be solved effectively using multi-cloud only. I am not at all against the architecture and trying to pen down my thoughts :) always looking forward for a feedback and comments?

?