Keep Calm & Run on AWS: Compliance While Keeping Your Stack
summary
Claims that jurisdiction follows operational control not physical location and evaluates AWS European Sovereign Cloud as a pragmatic compliance option. Benchmarks use Locust + Playwright against on‑prem VMware and Outpost instances, showing vCPU threading differences and a storage ceiling of 16,000 IOPS that causes database slowdowns. Outposts match region hardware but lag newer instance generations by 15–20% and drop many managed services, while backups and control‑plane ties still create legal and operational exposure despite physical locality.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (25)
- 0:00Welcome and Topic Setup
- 0:55Disclaimer and Context
- 2:12Speaker Background
- 3:14Why Compliance Feels Hard
- 7:09Data Residency vs Sovereignty
- 8:38Cloud Act Explained
- 12:18Risk vs Probability
- 14:57DORA and NIS2 Reality Check
- 18:12Control Plane Questions
- 19:27Hidden Costs of Exiting Cloud
- 22:25Compliance Theater Pitfalls
- 23:10AWS European Sovereign Cloud
- 24:39Mapping Regulations to Options
- 25:49External Key Management XKS
- 26:30Audits and KMS Controls
- 26:59ECS Limits and Politics
- 28:55Outposts Compliance Reality
- 30:20Why Consider Outposts
- 33:29Outposts Service Gaps
- 34:41Benchmarking Methodology
- 37:27CPU and Storage Findings
- 42:02Operational and Cost Burden
- 45:34Backup and DR Traps
- 49:42Decision Tree for Choices
- 51:51Final Recap and Closing
related talks
49mAWS secure hybrid edge services with AWS Outposts
45mAddressing sovereignty concerns: Privacy, compliance & vendor lock-in
39mDeep dive on hybrid cloud use cases with Outposts
17mControl without compromise: AWS European Sovereign Cloud
29mAccelerate Innovation with Hybrid Capabilities and Infrastructures
39mHow SBB brings cloud to on-prem & runs critical apps on AWS Outpost
32mCreate a cloud-ready environment
57mScaling compliance with AWS Control Tower