Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Your data ends up "locked" (as you mentioned, expensive to migrate/replicate) on the cloud platform that your Snowflake instances are running on; AWS, Google or Azure. I'd say it's in ALL of the cloud providers' interests to help Snowflake grow and prosper on their cloud platform.

At the moment it really seems that AWS is most successful here since all of the new and more advanced SF features are coming to AWS-based SF first. Then again, SF started on AWS so probably has most of their roots settled there.

While data replication across clouds in SF is expensive, I'm sure SF could/might absorb this one-time cost for you if you needed to migrate, esp if there was any sort of threaten from a particular cloud provider (assuming we're talking about internal stages and tables, not external stages/tables).

It's really in SF interest to lower this cost (or liability as you might see it) since they're really pushing for a multi-cloud data ecosystem. Just look at their data exchange product and how they're trying to make the underlying cloud platform irrelevant. The only thing really stopping this from taking off is the cost of setting up replicas in an of the regions or clouds that you want to share to or consume from.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: