Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
217 lines (166 loc) · 7.98 KB

MasterMap_Description.md

File metadata and controls

217 lines (166 loc) · 7.98 KB

Cloud Service Equivalence Master Map (AWS ↔ Azure ↔ GCP ↔ OSS)

Overview

This repository includes a curated cross-cloud equivalence master map that links AWS services to alternatives in:

  • Microsoft Azure
  • Google Cloud (GCP)
  • Open Source (OSS)

The purpose of this map is to support cross-cloud analysis, portability discussions, and architecture reasoning (e.g., when comparing patterns across providers or explaining what “equivalent” could mean in practice).

✅ This map focuses on practical alternatives, not perfect clones.
❌ It does not claim that every row has a strict 1:1 “twin” across clouds.

File: MasterMap_NOTES_ES_EN.csv

Rows: 141 (excluding header)
Columns (7):

  1. Servicio AWS (primary key / lookup key)
  2. Azure
  3. GCP
  4. Open Source
  5. Quality
  6. Notes_ES
  7. Notes_EN

What each row represents

Each row is a mapping record keyed by Servicio AWS.

A) Cloud-service rows (most rows)

The AWS entry is a real cloud service (e.g., S3, EKS, Lambda).
The row provides the closest alternatives in Azure/GCP/OSS, plus a Quality label and explanatory Notes.

B) Special / non-cloud rows (some rows)

Some entries are not cloud services, but actors/endpoints/placeholders used in architecture descriptions. For example: UserCompany* and UserConsumer*.

These represent end-user roles or endpoints (personas, devices, client apps, channels), so they should not be mapped to cloud services. Such rows should typically be interpreted as:

  • Quality = NA
  • Mapping columns may be -
  • Notes explain why mapping is not applicable

How to read the mapping columns (Azure, GCP, Open Source)

Each of these columns contains the best alternative(s) known for the AWS key.

Common conventions

  • Single value
    • The most suitable alternative for the same role/pattern.
  • A / B
    • Either option may satisfy the same role depending on the scenario.
    • Example: RabbitMQ / ActiveMQ means you may choose one depending on protocol/operations.
  • A + B
    • A combination is typically required to approximate the AWS behavior/pattern.
    • Example: one service provides the API gateway, another provides auth, another provides eventing, etc.
  • -
    • Intentionally not mapped / not applicable / no meaningful equivalent in that category.
    • Common for end-user actors (UserCompany/UserConsumer) or where OSS does not match the managed nature of the service.
  • Empty cell
    • Mapping not provided (unknown/not defined). Treat as incomplete.

Important: cloud providers differ in how they split products. A single AWS service can correspond to multiple services elsewhere, or vice versa.

Quality column (EXACT / CLOSE / APPROX / NA)

Quality indicates how strong the equivalence is from an architectural and operational standpoint.

EXACT

Near 1:1 equivalence

  • Same category and pattern
  • Comparable expectations
  • Similar operational behavior

Interpretation: “I can replace this with minimal design changes.”

CLOSE

Same category/pattern, but meaningful differences exist

  • Differences in features, integration, semantics, or operational model
  • Equivalent works, but you must account for important deltas

Interpretation: “Equivalent in practice, but not identical.”

APPROX

Equivalent by intent/function, but not a direct twin

  • Often requires combining services or changing the architecture pattern
  • Tradeoffs are expected (features, semantics, ops, managed vs DIY)

Interpretation: “Works as an alternative, but requires redesign or composition.”

NA (Not Applicable)

Not meant to be mapped as a cloud service

  • End-user actors/endpoints (UserCompany/UserConsumer)
  • Placeholders, or entries outside cloud-service scope
  • Items where mapping is intentionally not meaningful

Interpretation: “Do not map this entry to Azure/GCP/OSS services.”

Notes_ES and Notes_EN (what are Notes?)

The Notes are the justification and context behind the mapping. They explain:

  • Why the alternative was selected (pattern/functionality)
  • Key differences that prevent strict 1:1 mapping
  • Whether equivalence depends on design choices
    • Managed vs self-hosted
    • IAM / policies model
    • Eventing semantics
    • Quotas, regions, HA patterns
    • Operational responsibility differences
  • How to interpret OSS options
    • OSS sometimes provides only the core component; you may need extra tooling for production-grade parity.

Notes_ES and Notes_EN express the same idea in Spanish and English.

Special Case: UserCompany* / UserConsumer*

Entries like:

  • UserCompanyDeveloper
  • UserCompanyAPI
  • UserConsumerMobile
  • UserConsumerWeb
  • UserConsumerAlexaGoogleHome

are not cloud services.

They represent end-user actors, roles, channels, or endpoints (personas/devices/client apps).
They should not be replaced by Azure/GCP/OSS services.

Recommended interpretation:

  • Quality = NA
  • Mapping fields (Azure, GCP, Open Source) set to -
  • Notes explain that the entry is an actor/end-user element

How to use the map

1) Manual lookup (CSV)

Search Servicio AWS and read across the row:

  • Suggested alternatives in Azure/GCP/OSS
  • Quality tells you how close the match is
  • Notes_EN (or Notes_ES) tells you the why and the tradeoffs

2) Programmatic lookup (Notebook)

Use the notebook:

  • MappingEquivalencies.ipynb

It supports:

  • One or more services as input (comma-separated)
  • Returns Azure/GCP/OSS/Quality/Notes_EN
  • Exports results to a CSV in the same folder as the master map

Interpretation examples

Example 1: straightforward service mapping

If AWS service is a well-defined category (e.g., object storage), you often get:

  • One alternative per provider
  • Quality = CLOSE or EXACT
  • Notes explain differences (API, auth, lifecycle, eventing, etc.)

Example 2: “approximate” mapping (composition)

If the AWS service bundles several capabilities (e.g., managed workflows + eventing + permissions), you may see:

  • A composed mapping (A + B) in other clouds
  • Quality = APPROX
  • Notes explain required building blocks and deltas

Example 3: end-user actor rows

For UserCompanyDeveloper, the “equivalent” is not a cloud service:

  • Quality = NA
  • Notes: “this is an end-user actor/endpoint, do not map”

Limitations and scope

  • This map provides architectural alternatives, not official vendor guarantees.
  • Features, pricing, quotas, and product boundaries change over time.
  • Some services have no true equivalent due to provider-specific semantics.
  • OSS alternatives may require additional components (auth, HA, monitoring, persistence) to be production-ready.

Contributing / extending the map

If you add or modify entries:

  1. Keep Servicio AWS unique and stable
  2. Use Quality consistently based on the rubric above
  3. Use Notes to justify:
    • what the alternative covers
    • what it does NOT cover
    • whether composition is required (A + B)
  4. For non-cloud actor rows, use:
    • Quality = NA
    • Mapping fields as -
    • Notes stating: actor/end-user endpoint, not a cloud service

Disclaimer and Maintenance (Instructor-Editable)

The equivalences and notes in this master map are intentionally instructor-editable.
They are subject to change over time due to:

  • updates in cloud providers (new services, deprecations, feature changes),
  • different architectural interpretations or course focus,
  • and suggestions/modifications made by the instructor running the activity.

Therefore, the map should be treated as a living document: the recommended alternatives and their explanations may be refined, corrected, or expanded as part of the teaching process.

This is correct, viable, and expected for the activity: the goal is not to enforce a fixed “official truth”, but to provide a practical, well-justified baseline that can evolve with instructor feedback and course needs.