Imagine this: your organization has–after much discussion–made the decision to get rid of your on-premises storage and move your content to the cloud. The prospect is no doubt exciting–the enhanced collaboration features, compliance tools, and mobile options will make it easier for your teams to work and communicate. Plus, those servers took up an annoying amount of space, and the cost of maintaining them was ludicrous.
So, you select a prominent migration solution and get ready to begin your project. However, as you’re discussing the project with their team, they let you know that there are going to be some servers you’ll have to set up to complete the process. If you envisioned this being a streamlined process–manageable entirely from the desktop of your project teams’ laptops–you’re in for a nasty shock.
Get ready to build new servers, and then dismantle them when all is through. Get ready for the extra steps you never predicted.
This might all sound like a ridiculous hypothetical–the irony of having to construct new servers in order to leave your old ones behind –but it’s actually a frustratingly common occurrence.
The idea that your migration team–on top of strategizing the project, designing your waves, selecting your target destination, and mapping your permissions–should have to invest time in a server construction project (the results of which will have to be done away with once the project is complete) is antithetical to the actual goals of your migration.
It’s Absurd–We’ve Tried It!
A little while ago, the Cloud FastPath team decided to test out the product of one of our competitors. A well-respected and well-known migration solution, it has been a staple of cloud migration for quite some time, and we wanted to understand the experience of working with the tool.
We were informed that we had the option to use the tool with or without on-premises setup, but were informed that, for large migrations, the former was recommended. While we could have done a smaller test, we felt it was important to experience the tool as a large organization might, moving all of their content in what would constitute a project for which the on-premises setup was the best bet.
Setting up the basic hardware was simple enough–it took all of 30 minutes. However, from there the “fun” really began.
For Office 365 migrations, we realized that you must install SQL Server Express, which required monitoring throughout one of our tests. On top of that, many of the servers required sub-tasks or “slaves,” which gave us one more ball to juggle.
Even for our team–for whom cloud migration is their literal speciality–this process was arduous. Forced to monitor so many different elements meant that less attention could be paid to carefully crafting the migration itself. This would likely be more of a problem for an organization that doesn’t specialize in migrating content.
Subjecting your IT team to this sort of byzantine project structure is not only a pain and a waste, but it makes it more likely that something will go wrong. In these scenarios, businesses are practically inviting more variables and more potential problems into their lives.
Cloud FastPath Avoids These Pitfalls
When we consider what the ideal migration looks like, this is not what we envision. That’s why Cloud FastPath is a fully SaaS solution: no additional hardware required.
The migration solutions that force their customers to construct all of this additional hardware will always have excuses for it, even claiming that this is necessary to ensure the success of the migration, but that’s simply not true. Hundreds of major businesses have migrated petabytes and more of content using Cloud FastPath and not one of them was required to build extra hardware for the job. We have it on good authority that none of them were especially disappointed by that, either.
Cloud FastPath is massive migration simplified, and part of that is making sure that your teams aren’t subject to inessential or unnecessarily complicated add-ons. It’s crucial that you take the time to design a strategic and secure migration plan, and expending time and energy figuring out what hardware you have to construct to get your project off the ground is only a detriment–bound to complicate things to the point where mistakes are all the more likely.
The reason you’re ditching those servers in the first place is to experience the simplicity and smoothness of working with all of your content and all of your apps directly on your devices, without the need for VPNs or excessive server maintenance bills.
So why force yourself to further endure that level of inconvenience during migration?
You don’t deserve that headache!