Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

arador.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 233 posts

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#61

Post by jrochkind1 »

shiftpgdn wrote: post #7

I 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…

You're paying for the staff time to set up the lower-level infrastructure and keep it running at _least_ as reliably as if you had your own staff on bare metal, quite likely more so. (including scaling it when you need more etc).

It is interesting that they end up charging you this for _bandwidth_ though. Their staff time doesn't actually probably scale with bandwidth, but their prices do.

I think it's probably kind of a way of pricing based on a proxy for customer size, likely revenue, and ability/willingness to pay. Rather than as a % margin on actual costs.

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#62

Post by dfinninger »

Klathmon wrote: post #49
orik wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hopefully with your spare 3437 dollars a month you could figure out how to ever maintain such a thing.

Where can I find competent sysadmins capable of managing a system like that on their own for $40,000 a year?

Doesn't make much sense for one server... but if you have 5, then you are looking at $200k. Then as you go up the numbers start making more sense.

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#63

Post by [deleted] »

Klathmon wrote: post #49
orik wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hopefully with your spare 3437 dollars a month you could figure out how to ever maintain such a thing.

Where can I find competent sysadmins capable of managing a system like that on their own for $40,000 a year?

[deleted]

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#64

Post by Dylan16807 »

If colocation actually cost that much, it would make sense for a connection that allows extreme bursting to charge 3x as much per byte.

The real number to compare to is the google data for business rate. You can do lots of colocation in that price range. And that is why the cloud prices are unreasonable.

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#65

Post by user5994461 »

user5994461 wrote: post #58
gfody wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're right, the performance of the local storage on i3 instances is a lot better than normal EBS but still nothing close to what you would get from just buying an Intel P4500 or similar though. http://www.aerospike.com/benchmarks/amazon-ec2-i3-performanc...

Double the P4500. The raid is not gonna store data out of thin air.

And add a third one while you're at it.

Given the price of the server and the data you have on it, it's important enough to warrant a hot spare.

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#66

Post by openasocket »

FTA wrote: post #45
desdiv wrote: post #30

(Bandwidth is ambiguous in this context so I'll use "data transfers" instead) I personally don't see the outrage. AmaGoogSoft overcharges for data transfers because they know they can get away with it and that lowering it won't attract more customers. Customers with transfer-heavy applications will always buy their servers from providers with unlimited transfers like OVH[0][1], where you can do hundreds of terabytes…

> I personally don't see the outrage. AmaGoogSoft overcharges for data transfers because they know they can get away with it and that lowering it won't attract more customers. I know a handful of scientists, myself included, who would consider cloud computing were it not for the expensive egress costs. The ease of spinning up lots of computing power for scientific modelling is useless if retrieving the vast quantitie…

How much raw output data are we talking about? What order of magnitude? Unless we're talking PB a month EC2 prices seem fairly reasonable. Also keep in mind intra-region communication between instances is free

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#67

Post by MichaelGG »

mankash666 wrote: post #34

"Amazon EC2, Microsoft Azure and Google Gloud Platform are all seriously screwing their customers over when it comes to bandwidth charges." Disagree. There's no false advertising here, they're making you pay for their service and convenience of using a combined [Paas, Iaas, Saas ..etc]. It's unfair to view these services as a singular function, you typically touch MANY features/products in production. The cost includ…

This is simply untrue for bandwidth charges if you're pushing a lot of data.

A streaming video service, for example, might end up paying $0.10/user/hour. So a movie-a-night customer would cost $6. What multiple of reasonable do you think that is?

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#69

Post by gnopgnip »

allemagne wrote: post #14
m-j-fox wrote: post #9

> Google Fiber for Business Maybe worth renting an office in Provo just to get the deal.

SLC if your employees like the mountains but might want a beer or caffeinated beverage once in a while ;)

The LDS Church has a prohibition on hot beverages but cold caffeinated are actually allowed. It is a common misconception that all caffeine is not allowed. Homebrewed beer, and homebrewed wine are technically allowed also. Many also ignore the part in the wow about eating meat sparingly while misinterpreting the rest.

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#70

Post by cagenut »

This is a super irritating feature of "enterprise" vendor pricing. What almost everyone on these platforms is doing is moving most of their bandwidth out of one of the CDN services (like say cloudfront) and then negotiating custom pricing on that bandwidth that is often as much as a full decimal place cheaper as long as you sign a couple grand a month yearly commit. There's still this massive massive pricing cusp between using the cloud as a utility and jumping into the suits & drinks & lunches sales guy game.
Post reply on HN