Loading
Moving workloads to cloud in stages, with a rollback path at every step and the cost modelled before anything moves.
Cloud migrations fail in predictable ways: nobody mapped the dependencies, the bandwidth wasn't sized for the ongoing traffic, and the running cost turned out higher than the hardware it replaced.
We start with discovery and a cost model. Some workloads should move, some should be rebuilt, and some should stay exactly where they are — and saying so is more useful than migrating everything on principle.
Migration runs in waves, lowest-risk first, with each wave validated and reversible before the next begins.
Publishing exclusions is deliberate. Nobody in this market does it, and it's the fastest way to avoid a variation conversation later.
If yours isn't here, ask — we'd rather answer it before you buy than after.
Sometimes, and sometimes not. Steady predictable workloads often cost more in cloud than owned hardware; variable or seasonal ones usually cost less. We model it honestly, and we have told clients not to migrate.
Yes, and you should. Hybrid for a period is normal, not a failure state — big-bang migrations are where the expensive surprises happen.
Free site survey first. You keep the findings whether or not you buy.
