Cloud Repatriation Guide: Costs, Security, & Performance for Enterprises

As with any major business decisions, cost is paramount. A move to the Cloud often promises to cut infrastructure costs and better control costs, making them more forecastable. This isn’t always the case. Cloud providers do increase storage costs and even change their payment models altogether. 

When you consider the vast amounts of data in Cloud storage, you can understand the massive financial impact of cost increases. For some organizations, higher than expected costs (such as storage and infrastructure) and a lack of control around these outgoings mean that Cloud storage isn’t as financially viable as they might have expected. They opt to return to the more known quantity of their own infrastructure and in-house storage. It’s always wise to review contracts with Cloud providers around lock-in clauses and the potential issues this can cause with data extraction.

Writing in TDWI, Michael Gibbs uses a useful analogy of a landlord-tenant relationship to explain why Cloud costs have risen. Michael Gibbs makes the point that Cloud storage vendors can no longer rely on economy at scale, because Cloud storage has reached hyperscale – the point at which a bigger governance structure and more equipment is a necessity. These vendors “must always charge more than the actual cost of building and operating the network and data centre” much like a landlord raising rents for a tenant – with vendor costs escalating, this is inevitably passed on.

Cloud environments are generally considered more secure than on-premises servers. Cloud storage providers, apps and archive platforms invest heavily in security, evolving in line with emerging threats. More and more organizations are moving sensitive data to the Cloud.

However, high-profile data breaches in the Cloud have knocked enterprise confidence in security. In 2023, according to Thales, 39% of businesses experienced a Cloud data breach. For compliance-focused sectors where data security is paramount, it’s been an easier decision to bring data and workloads back in-house to mitigate risk. When it comes to data governance, some organizations feel more secure with on-premises, especially with cyber criminals turning their attention to the Cloud.

Cloud environments are an attractive target for cyber-criminals, with so much sensitive data available. Hackers are quick to exploit any weaknesses, leading to the existence of so-called zero-day attacks, where vulnerabilities are spotted and exploited by attackers before Cloud providers. Common vulnerabilities span misconfigurations in the security settings to a lack of encryption to unsecured APIs.

Malware is also becoming increasingly prevalent in Cloud environments with malicious software and apps or infected devices compromising the wider infrastructure. As Dror Zalman points out, some of the issues around malware arise from organizations not knowing where the vendor’s responsibilities end and its own begin. With attackers utilising the power of the Cloud to execute attacks at speed and scale, this confusion is even more of a concern. 

As with many of the themes here, we see two sides of the same coin, in that what the Cloud offers also being the reason organizations are deciding to move from the Cloud. A good case in point is operational control. The Cloud promises efficiency and control at scale in a post-covid world, but some believe more operational control can be exacted from within their own private infrastructure.

One of the major appeals of the Cloud is being able to access data quickly and use apps without delay, anytime and anywhere. Therefore, any issues around performance can be frustrating for users and in turn organizations. Some Cloud service providers may throttle processing speeds to the extent that users feel that performance doesn’t match the speeds of on-premises servers. Slow Cloud performance can also be down to inefficient resource allocation, something many Cloud providers are trying to counter with better Cloud resource optimisation.

Mergers and acquisitions have seen a resurgence in 2024 after a period of caution in 2023 amidst economic uncertainty. Any merger and acquisition will require a large scale data migration to consolidate data between the companies. There is often a degree of urgency around the process to keep disruption to a minimum. For these reasons, it can make sense to move some data from the Cloud back to on-premises before migrating to the same Cloud platform.

If you are considering moving some of your workloads back to on-premises environments, you need to plan for some of the potential challenges.

Although the Cloud is a target for hackers, in-house data security remains vulnerable to attack. It’s vital your security is up to scratch and remains that way as threats evolve. Best practices must be followed and protocols put in place to address any vulnerabilities. It may be necessary to purchase additional security software to protect your data which will come at a cost. 

Do you have the appropriate hardware and software internally? If you do, is it up for the job? Sometimes organizations make the move to the Cloud when their existing servers need an update and a significant outlay of capital, prompting them to consider other options. 

Transvault is experienced in assessing infrastructure and environments in terms of their readiness for email archive extraction or transfer.

Moving your data back to on-premises servers requires staff with particular expertise to maintain and manage it. If you don’t have this resource in-house already then you need to go out to market which can be time-consuming. You then have the salary costs associated to account for. 

Where costs will factor into any decision-making process, it’s important to understand those with Cloud Repatriation. As previously mentioned, you may have costs around getting your infrastructure up to scratch and any hardware and software costs, both upfront and ongoing. There are often data extraction fees to contend with as well as potential vendor lock-in clauses.