I'm in agreement with Simon that it's much faster and reliable to host in the cloud than a server on site. It would cost me many more hours, hand holding, and worry if I had to host this server in my network. If I went on vacation and something happened, I'd be stressed.
With sonar living in the cloud, there's less to worry about as it's hosted in a much more reliable datacenter than I could afford to build. It's also managed by sonar's team so if there's an issue, they take care of it. Stress free for me. I see why you might want to host it in house but those reasons do NOT outweigh all the benefits of letting sonar host it in the cloud for you and take care of the problems. Mike, if you don't like Simon's decision to leave it in the cloud, shut up and move on. There's no reason for you and Matt Hoppes to keep beating a dead horse and sound like a broken record. Use something else you're happy with and let the rest of us grow our business and make more $$$ while you two complain about a product you don't even use. Jeez ha On Oct 17, 2017 8:31 PM, "Seth Mattinen" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/17/17 6:14 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > >> Expect repeated harassment until a good reason is presented or you >> capitulate. >> >> It's the SFP of the billing\OSS world. >> > > > I always welcome my competitors to have external dependencies. When they > try to hand wave their problems away as vendor or cloud problems it helps > me gain new customers. > > ~Seth >
