Multi-cloud setups

Multi-cloud is hosting infrastructure/an application with several cloud providers (AWS, Google Cloud, Azure etc.) simultaneously: for resilience to a whole provider's failure, avoiding lock-in to one vendor, or meeting regulatory/geographic requirements. It is not the same as simply 'being in the cloud' — it is a deliberate, complex architecture across several clouds. Honestly about 'needed by very few', this is key: real reasons for multi-cloud are rare — a hard requirement to survive a whole cloud's outage, regulation (data in specific jurisdictions/with different providers), or an already historically formed landscape. For the vast majority of projects one good cloud is more than enough, and multi-cloud is pure over-engineering. We honestly assess: most likely you do not need it. Honestly about the 'common denominator', this matters: to work across several clouds you have to give up the deep, convenient managed services of each provider (they all differ) in favor of what exists everywhere — this deprives you of the best tools and slows development. Honestly about complexity and cost: multi-cloud increases operational complexity manyfold — different APIs, networks, IAM, monitoring, billing per provider; a serious team and expertise across several clouds at once are needed; both infrastructure and maintenance costs grow. Honestly about 'lock-in cheaper than the cure': the main motive for multi-cloud is fear of vendor lock-in. But in practice the complexity and cost of real multi-cloud are often HIGHER than the hypothetical cost of migrating off one cloud later. That is, the cure is more expensive than the disease. We honestly state this. Honestly about the effect: for the few who genuinely need it, multi-cloud gives resilience to a provider's failure and compliance, but it is an expensive, complex investment not justified for the majority. Honestly about access: a real reason (fault tolerance/regulation), a strong team, a budget are needed. An important boundary: this is multi-cloud; container orchestration — 1067; serverless — 1068; IaC (managing infrastructure as code) — 1071. Picture this: instead of 'the whole system depending on one provider' — distribution across clouds, BUT only if you genuinely have a reason for it. The base price starts from 120,000 ₽ (depends on scale and the number of clouds).

• A hard requirement to survive a whole cloud provider's failure.
• Regulation: data with different providers/in specific jurisdictions.
• You want multi-cloud out of fear of vendor lock-in — but there is no real reason.
• A past multi-cloud setup gave manyfold complexity and cost without payoff.

• An honest assessment: is there a real reason for multi-cloud or is it excessive
• An architecture distributing across providers (for the real need)
• Accounting for the 'common denominator' (loss of deep managed services)
• Unified networking, IAM, monitoring, billing across several clouds
• Honest boundaries (needed by few; huge complexity; growth of cost/expertise; lock-in often cheaper)
• A comparison with the one-cloud alternative (often more sensible)
• A multi-cloud operation plan
• Handover and review with you

• Resilience to a provider's failure / regulatory compliance (for those who need it)
• Distributing the system across clouds for a real reason
• An honest assessment: for most, one cloud is more sensible
• Honest boundaries (huge complexity; cost growth; lock-in often cheaper)

• We assess whether there is a real reason for multi-cloud
• If yes — we design the distribution accounting for complexity and cost
• If not — we honestly recommend one cloud, set boundaries with you

• Is multi-cloud needed to avoid depending on one vendor?

  Rarely justified, honestly: fear of vendor lock-in is the main motive for multi-cloud, but in practice its complexity and cost are often HIGHER than the hypothetical cost of migrating off one cloud later. The cure is more expensive than the disease. Plus you lose deep managed services (you stick to the 'common denominator'). For the vast majority one good cloud is more sensible. We will honestly assess whether you have a real reason.

• Will multi-cloud make the system more reliable?

  Only with a real need and a big cost, honestly: surviving a whole provider's failure is a real plus, but it is needed by few (hard fault-tolerance requirements). Meanwhile multi-cloud reliability is achieved through a manyfold growth in complexity — different APIs, networks, IAM, monitoring per cloud. For most, one cloud with redundancy inside it is both simpler and more reliable in practice. We will honestly weigh this.

• Is it just deploying to two clouds at once?

  No, honestly: multi-cloud is a deliberate complex architecture, not 'two accounts'. Operational complexity, cost and expertise requirements across several clouds grow manyfold; you have to give up the best managed services for the 'common denominator'. It is justified only for the few with a real reason. We honestly build in this cost rather than pass multi-cloud off as an easy 'just in case'.