Portability proves to be a complex and expensive endeavour.
The crux of the issue resides in the inherent disparities among cloud settings. Despite sharing common characteristics, each cloud supplier’s unique API, protocol, and architecture create significant technical hurdles that hinder seamless platform-to-platform migration. Cloud providers have become a viable option for enterprises, offering the possibility of procurement and management akin to traditional IT vendors. Requires a significant range of remediation work to adapt workloads to new platforms? Efforts to revamp software code range from subtle tweaks to nearly complete overhauls, depending on the existing functionality and relevant programming languages. Many organizations find moving to the cloud to be a shocking revelation, as it often requires significant changes to their IT infrastructure and business processes.
While processing tasks within digital frameworks appears feasible, it inadvertently compromises certain advantages of cloud-based computing, including scalability and adaptability. For cloud-native applications specifically crafted to thrive in cloud environments, the situation becomes just as complex. Despite its widespread adoption as a fundamental framework by major and minor cloud providers, migrating applications built on Kubernetes between providers often requires addressing disparities in configurations and additional plugins.
While Kubernetes and containerization might seem deceptively simple at first glance, the reality is that implementing a seamless, efficient, and scalable architecture is far from straightforward. Concerned by the collapse of several container-based projects, I’ve questioned why IT management failed to acknowledge the inherent limitations of such endeavors, ultimately leading to their downfall.
