Managed application platforms
Choose a platform migration for the workload and operating model you need. Dreamtsoft scopes moves to PaaS, between platforms and from PaaS to a different hosting arrangement.
A migration decision that includes operating effort and data authority
- Readiness assessment
- Runtime, state, dependencies, integrations and operating constraints.
- Cost and responsibility model
- Target costs, retained work, transition effort and coexistence assumptions.
- Cutover plan
- Authoritative writes, reconciliation, recovery and production acceptance.
A scoped engagement
From assessment to accepted delivery
Assess fit
Check runtime compatibility, dependencies and service constraints.
Compare destinations
Model the target responsibilities and whole transition cost.
Rehearse migration
Test application, data and recovery with representative conditions.
Cut over and observe
Move authority deliberately and verify cost and service behavior.
Define the direction and reason for the move
Migrating from IaaS to PaaS transfers some platform operations to a provider. Moving between PaaS services changes service contracts and integration assumptions. Exiting PaaS can transfer patching, deployment, backups and monitoring work back to your team. Each direction needs its own business case.
We compare these paths against runtime fit, control, portability, operational capacity and cost. A managed platform may be suitable for one component while a database, background worker or integration needs another destination. Record the actual reason for migration before choosing a hosting label.
Test workload assumptions before the destination is fixed
Assess language and runtime support, build and deployment, filesystem behavior, state, background jobs, scheduled tasks, networking, connection pooling, secrets, custom domains and TLS. Review scaling and service limits for the current provider and proposed target.
Application readiness includes identity, dependencies, licenses, latency and observability. Vendor lock-in may sit in add-ons, APIs, deployment configuration or operational practices as well as application code. Retaining the current platform, changing only selected components or moving to self-managed infrastructure should remain visible options where they meet the requirements.
Compare concrete platform paths
Azure App Service, Heroku, Cloud Foundry, AWS Elastic Beanstalk and other application platforms differ in runtime support, deployment behavior, networking and attached services. A move from virtual machines to a managed app service is not identical to a migration between two managed platforms.
For Kubernetes, containers, managed cloud services or another PaaS target, verify compatibility with a workload-specific proof. Provider documentation and current limits must be checked during scoping. We agree the implementation and specialist responsibilities for the chosen path rather than promising that every workload has an automatic conversion.
For paths involving Google App Engine, OpenShift, Railway or Render, compare the existing build and runtime contract, attached services and operational responsibilities with the proposed destination. For Heroku moves to AWS, Azure or Kubernetes, assess the application and add-ons separately. IIS-to-App-Service and SQL Server-to-Azure-SQL scopes require compatibility and data checks for the actual installation; naming a destination does not establish feasibility.
Move data and dependent services as part of the application
Database, queue, cache, storage, search and other add-on migrations can determine the application cutover. Record schemas, extensions, credentials, retention, backup exports and integration endpoints. Test representative data and failure behavior, not only a successful connection.
For each phase, name the authoritative writer and the reconciliation process. Account for queued messages, delayed events, retries and writes accepted during transition. Data checks include counts and business invariants, with ownership of exceptions. A recovery plan must cover data divergence as well as application deployment.
Include the responsibilities that change hands
Compare platform fees with compute, database, storage, network transfer, licenses, backup, monitoring, security and engineering operating time. Include migration tooling, implementation, parallel running and decommissioning. Self-managed infrastructure is not cheaper merely because its compute invoice is lower.
Break-even analysis compares recurring savings, if any, with the transition investment and ongoing operating effort. Use measured current costs and explicit assumptions; do not treat an illustrative scenario as a price quote. The linked decision guide includes a reusable cost model for examining these trade-offs.
Staying can cost less when transition investment and added operating effort outweigh expected savings over the planning period. Compare proposals using the same migration boundary, currency assumptions and retained obligations. Changing only selected components can be a valid option.
| Cost boundary | Inputs to record |
|---|---|
| Current platform | Platform and add-on fees, usage, support and retained engineering effort. |
| Target platform | Infrastructure, managed services, licenses and ongoing operations. |
| Transition | Engineering, data movement, coexistence, rehearsal and retirement. |
| Acceptance | Observed service behavior, recovery evidence and actual cost after cutover. |
Rehearse the cutover and the failure decision
Blue-green, canary and phased migrations need compatibility between application versions, routing and data. Define entry conditions, success checks, rollback triggers and who authorizes progression. Rehearse the chosen sequence with representative data volume and dependencies.
Monitoring must expose application health, failed jobs, reconciliation gaps and cost changes. Validate backups and recovery objectives before switching authority. After the move, confirm that traffic, scheduled work, credentials and retained data no longer depend on a platform that is about to be decommissioned. Availability and timeline commitments follow the assessed design.
Handover includes reproducible deployment and configuration, access and secrets ownership, alerts, logs, recovery runbooks and the support boundary. Confirm who can operate the target after the migration team leaves.
Prepare the project discussion
Make the scope reviewable
Record your requirements, dependencies, exclusions and completion evidence in the worksheet. Add an owner for unresolved decisions. Bring the working document to the project discussion so the estimate can distinguish known work from assumptions.
Download the project worksheet (CSV)Create a project brief
Describe the work below and save a text brief for your project discussion. These fields are used to create the file in your browser; this tool does not submit a project request.
Start with your project constraints
Tell us about the existing system or product idea, the outcome you need and the constraints that shape delivery. We will use those details to discuss the assessment and implementation scope.
Talk to Dreamtsoft