Live data from Hacker News

GCE vs. AWS in 2016: Why You Shouldn't Use Amazon

thehftguy.com

51–60 of 179 posts

Re: GCE vs. AWS in 2016: Why You Shouldn't Use Amazon

#51
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, your bill must be gigantic.

Well, it's not small, but definitely not that crazy. We're running an immutable infrastructure and the majority of the servers are a "cattle". To be more specific, we redeploy servers from images instead of replacing just the code. The majority of servers (99.9%) is preemptible (meaning that they will be deleted every 24 hours) and thus we get a huge discount. Also our whole communication is through pubsub so the ser…

Awesome, would you mind sending me an email (in profile), I'd like to pick your brain a bit further.

Re: GCE vs. AWS in 2016: Why You Shouldn't Use Amazon

#52
post #6

What reason is AWS premium support mandatory? I ask because I'm currently building out SaaS offering on AWS and haven't yet hit any issues requiring support. Can I expect to start seeing issues as traffic scales up to a certain level?

Having 24/7 access to one dedicated AWS employee (the technical account manager (TAM) you get as part of premium support) can be _really_ helpful. Such TAMs can get you direct access to the product teams inside of AWS in case you need it and can escalate problems quickly.

Still, it really depends on what you're doing at which scale with AWS. I also found business support quite good, if you don't need such dedicated resources.

Regarding seeing issues, it's simply a matter of probabilities: The more you run in AWS the more likely it is to get problems sooner or later with one or the other service.

My advice is to start with business support and see based on the experiences with it if you have additional requirements business support doesn't meet. If yes, you might then better know if premium support might offer enough value for its money.

Re: GCE vs. AWS in 2016: Why You Shouldn't Use Amazon

#53
post #45

I've used AWS for a bit over 9 months now and it's quite terrible to be honest. I don't need it for anything professional and it's quite terrible for just some amateur hosting plus the immense fees if you somehow manage to get decent traffic together. Once my reserved instances run out I'll probably either check out GCE or DO, either seems to be a better option, though GCE seems to be more expensive. Anyways, the con…

I mean, you're basically setting up a datacenter if you aren't using Beanstalk.

I see complaints all the time about how complicated the networking is, IAM, etc is. But it's far more simple dealing with VPCs then having to buy and hop onto a bunch of F5s/Brocades etc that tend to require their own network engineers on staff.

The issue always seems to be that someone tries to move a company onto AWS but they lack the experience in actually running infrastructure to that degree. If you know Change Management you can figure out Cloud Formation templates, if you don't you're likely completely lost and rolling out instances by hand. If you don't know any network engineering you're likely going to have issues with load balancers and VPCs.

You can really see the experience difference in people when you work on multiple AWS infrastructures. And that's the huge benefit to it. You can practically roll out whatever sort of infrastructure your business requires.

If you're experienced enough you can basically do every single thing in AWS/GCP without having to hire ancillary staff (network engs, etc).

I personally use Cloud Formation and create EVERYTHING by it. Load balancers, VPCs, instances, kubernetes, etc. But yeah, if you haven't touched CF before it can be like walking into a spider web of confusion - but believe me, I'd rather do that over again than take over someones hardware that has no APIs, no dashboards, no centralization. I spent years in datacenters where everything was done manually. I wouldn't ever want to go back now that I've learned to treat infrastructure as code.

But hey, if you want to run Vsphere servers, manually configure instances and databases and not do any automation via AWS you can do that as well.

That's why it's incredible.

Re: GCE vs. AWS in 2016: Why You Shouldn't Use Amazon

#54

One reason why I still can't use GCE in 2016. No PostgreSQL support for CloudSQL. I can find alternatives for other services, but I don't want to compromise on the choice of relational database. Note: I understand there are third-party providers for PostgreSQL, but I'd rather have Google's.

This is on my short wishlist for GCE. It's such obvious feature parity that it's very strange they're not doing it.

Re: GCE vs. AWS in 2016: Why You Shouldn't Use Amazon

#55
post #53
post #45

I've used AWS for a bit over 9 months now and it's quite terrible to be honest. I don't need it for anything professional and it's quite terrible for just some amateur hosting plus the immense fees if you somehow manage to get decent traffic together. Once my reserved instances run out I'll probably either check out GCE or DO, either seems to be a better option, though GCE seems to be more expensive. Anyways, the con…

I mean, you're basically setting up a datacenter if you aren't using Beanstalk. I see complaints all the time about how complicated the networking is, IAM, etc is. But it's far more simple dealing with VPCs then having to buy and hop onto a bunch of F5s/Brocades etc that tend to require their own network engineers on staff. The issue always seems to be that someone tries to move a company onto AWS but they lack the e…

I totally agree, AWS is great if you are basically screwing in the racks yourself anyway (metaphorically speaking).

But for running a few hobbyist/amateur servers on it, it's absolutely horrifyingly complicated, especially when I'm not really a networking engineer, I like tinkering in the backend but not to that degree.

Re: GCE vs. AWS in 2016: Why You Shouldn't Use Amazon

#56
post #55
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, you're basically setting up a datacenter if you aren't using Beanstalk. I see complaints all the time about how complicated the networking is, IAM, etc is. But it's far more simple dealing with VPCs then having to buy and hop onto a bunch of F5s/Brocades etc that tend to require their own network engineers on staff. The issue always seems to be that someone tries to move a company onto AWS but they lack the e…

I totally agree, AWS is great if you are basically screwing in the racks yourself anyway (metaphorically speaking). But for running a few hobbyist/amateur servers on it, it's absolutely horrifyingly complicated, especially when I'm not really a networking engineer, I like tinkering in the backend but not to that degree.

You could look into Beanstalk, it depends on what the code your app is written in, though. But yeah, I really wouldn't suggest AWS for something simple that DO or Linode could easily handle.

GCP is also far more simplified than AWS if you haven't tried it. The way they do server auth via Google accounts (using gcloud) is pretty awesome and simple. You can make project-level SSH keys that are automatically placed onto every server and you can block specific servers from receiving them all through the UI.

I do greatly miss AWS's breadth of service offerings, though.

Re: GCE vs. AWS in 2016: Why You Shouldn't Use Amazon

#58

One reason why I still can't use GCE in 2016. No PostgreSQL support for CloudSQL. I can find alternatives for other services, but I don't want to compromise on the choice of relational database. Note: I understand there are third-party providers for PostgreSQL, but I'd rather have Google's.

Totally agree, Google Container Engine (hosted kubernetes) plus managed Postgresql would be my dream setup.

Re: GCE vs. AWS in 2016: Why You Shouldn't Use Amazon

#59
post #7

We moved back and forth between AWS and GCE (based on who gave us free credits). Once we ran out, we chose GCE and never regretted it. GCE has many quirks, for instance the inconsistency between API and the UI, it misses the richness of the services offered by AWS but everything GCE does offer is just faster, more stable and much more consistent. One of the biggest problems with AWS is that once you outgrow the assig…

At 25k servers / day one would think pulling this into real hardware and doing capacity planning would be cost effective.

Re: GCE vs. AWS in 2016: Why You Shouldn't Use Amazon

#60
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, your bill must be gigantic.

Well, it's not small, but definitely not that crazy. We're running an immutable infrastructure and the majority of the servers are a "cattle". To be more specific, we redeploy servers from images instead of replacing just the code. The majority of servers (99.9%) is preemptible (meaning that they will be deleted every 24 hours) and thus we get a huge discount. Also our whole communication is through pubsub so the ser…

You should have moved to bare metal months/years ago. Things like making your servers preemptible is like putting a bandaid on a gaping bullet hole.
Post reply on HN