Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
1–10 of 233 posts
Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
#2I dont think its fair to compare GCP's egress costs to a colo's. A collocation is simply sending your packets straight to the internet, where-as GCP routes your packets over private fiber to its closet POP to your user. Giving you better latency.
Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
#3The bandwidth is the soda: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12270129
Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
#4I dont think its fair to compare GCP's egress costs to a colo's. A collocation is simply sending your packets straight to the internet, where-as GCP routes your packets over private fiber to its closet POP to your user. Giving you better latency.
Do you have more details about this? I am 100% certain this isn't the case in Azure.
Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
#5When you buy in mbps, you're actually billed based on 95th percentile usage. So this comparison is way off, depending on traffic patterns, 1mb/s committed can work out to about 120GB in a month on average. If you use reasonable GB per mb/s numbers the cloud providers don't look all that bad.
Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
#6I dont think its fair to compare GCP's egress costs to a colo's. A collocation is simply sending your packets straight to the internet, where-as GCP routes your packets over private fiber to its closet POP to your user. Giving you better latency.
[deleted]
Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
#7I have posted a few times about how absurdly expensive all the cloud providers are. If you have a baseline load you should be co-locating bare metal. Any excess capacity you need should spill over into your AWS/GCE/Azure account.
For example: A dedicated m4.16xLarge EC2 instance in AWS is $3987/month. You could build that same server for $15,000 through Dell, lease it at $400/month (OpEx), and colo it with a 1GB/s blended bandwidth connection billed at the 95th percentile for $150/month.
Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
#8I dont think its fair to compare GCP's egress costs to a colo's. A collocation is simply sending your packets straight to the internet, where-as GCP routes your packets over private fiber to its closet POP to your user. Giving you better latency.
The last time I measured AWS latency to anywhere, it tens of milliseconds higher than the super-cheap-and-crappy virtual server service I compared it to.
Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
#9> Google Fiber for Business
Maybe worth renting an office in Provo just to get the deal.
Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
#10I have posted a few times about how absurdly expensive all the cloud providers are. If you have a baseline load you should be co-locating bare metal. Any excess capacity you need should spill over into your AWS/GCE/Azure account. For example: A dedicated m4.16xLarge EC2 instance in AWS is $3987/month. You could build that same server for $15,000 through Dell, lease it at $400/month (OpEx), and colo it with a 1GB/s bl…
OVH has absurdly low prices on both. If you have a baseline load take a look. Their enterprise offerings are pretty rock solid and they have multiple data centers with direct fiber backplane interconnects.
IMHO the big cloud providers only make sense if you have a highly elastic load or if you are making extensive use of their as-a-service higher level offerings. If you're running baseline load bare metal destroys them.