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

161–170 of 233 posts

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

#161

Post by joshuamorton »

morecoffee wrote: post #145
noahl wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but I think there's another point that's even more significant: not all network access is the same. In particular, putting some machines in a rack in a colo and connecting to the nearest Internet exchange is really not comparable to Google's networking, which is essentially a worldwide second Internet that is faster and more reliable than the normal Internet, and which carries your packets as far as pos…

...and how many people need that? I would gladly 1/3 of the cost for 4 nines over 5 nines. (or whatever SLA they offer). Not everyone need a ritzy ultra reliable network. It costs way too much and hardly any customer is going to get comparable value out of it.

Their business customers probably really do care. Companies run off of AWS and GCP. I'm sure that spotify and Snapchat and Netflix get considerable value from those guarantees.

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

#162

Post by greedo »

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?

It's not as if using AWS etc eliminates the need for a good sysadmin...

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

#163

Post by scott_karana »

jcastro wrote: post #141
slackingoff2017 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree strongly with this. Before all these cloud providers websites were not noticeably less reliable than they are now. I was around back when Apache and CGI was all there was, even then uptime was so good that it was rare to hit a website that was down. There's a lot of koolaid being thrown around by the companies with cloud to sell. Unfortunately these also happen to be the big "market leaders" so it's hard t…

I think you're being a bit rose-colored glasses here if you're implying that apache/cgi sites had some sort of incredible uptime record back in the time when "the slashdot effect" was still a thing. > Most of my bare metal and colocated machines have uptime of many years. Nobody cares about host uptime, that just means you're not applying security updates. You're lamenting that you have to worry about fault tolerance…

> Nobody cares about host uptime, that just means you're not applying security updates.

Um... Only kernel updates used to require a reboot, and production security-critical ones are fairly rare.

Solutions like ksplice, kexec, kpatch, or kgraft have existed since about 2011, and now the Linux kernel has first-class support for "no reboot" updates.

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

#164

Post by detaro »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #154
kyledrake wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a site on Neocities we host for free that would cost $560/mo to host on Amazon's CDN. It costs me less than $5 with my current configuration (which is also a global CDN). It's way over our "soft limit", but it's an awesome site so I don't care. The important part is, I don't have to care. This isn't about slightly more expensive tacos. It's about spending $560 on tacos instead of $5. "Meh" wouldn't exactly be…

I bet that site loses money for Neocities every month. But it's subsidized by the tens of thousands of $5 sites that don't consume their allotment of resources.

Read again: it's free for the user, $5 is the cost to neocities (so yes, it looses them money. $5 a month)

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

#165

Post by boundlessdreamz »

kyledrake wrote: post #157
paulddraper wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the drinks that are expensive, not the tacos. And soda has a 1,150% markup [1], so it actually is like that. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/products-high-markups-2014-7 P.S. You could host it on Github for even less, if you were really price conscious.

Alright, so $560 for a soda instead of a $5 soda. > P.S. You could host it on Github for even less. I'm not going to attempt to save an inconsequential amount of money by hosting a site I'm hosting on another host. But that strategy probably wouldn't end well. The $560 site uses 25x more bandwidth than Github's fairly low soft limit of 100GB ( https://help.github.com/articles/what-is-github-pages/ ) and is likely abo…

Yeah Fastly (github's CDN) is ridiculously expensive and they charge for requests just like cloudfront which can become very expensive. They are the only major CDN provider other than cloud services which charges for requests.

We went from cloudfront -> edgecast -> keycdn and our bill dropped from $3000 -> $500 -> $120

Edgecast when you buy is through a reseller is quite cheap but we moved because we needed custom domain SSL which is quite expensive in edgecast

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

#167

Post by mikiem »

mikiem wrote: post #152

As a provider of IaaS Cloud and of dedicated servers and colo, I hear this argument all the time. No one ever seems to include the Network Engineers, monitoring systems, the routers (better have more than 1!), the switches (distribution and access layers), the maintenance, software licenses (where applicable), customer support, cost of IP addresses, Account Payable, ARIN membership, RADB membership, cross-connects, o…

How could I forget electricity: A/B power for a pair of Cisco ASR 9006 routers costs us over $1,000/mo!

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

#168

Post by lsjdfkljdfwkwdf »

Xorlev wrote: post #131
noahl wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but I think there's another point that's even more significant: not all network access is the same. In particular, putting some machines in a rack in a colo and connecting to the nearest Internet exchange is really not comparable to Google's networking, which is essentially a worldwide second Internet that is faster and more reliable than the normal Internet, and which carries your packets as far as pos…

Can't agree more. I balked at the cost (still sort of do as a GCP user) until I joined Google and was able to peek behind the curtain. The network quality is absurd. GCP customers pay a premium for having the same network reach as Google. Their network works extremely hard to get user traffic onto the internal network as early as possible. Not only that, but Google's datacenters have 24/7 attention, lots of redundant…

The OP has no fucking clue on this topic. If the goal is to get the cheapest bandwidth possible, by all means... I stopped reading after seeing Google Fiber in the comparison.....

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

#170

Post by pvg »

mikiem wrote: post #152

As a provider of IaaS Cloud and of dedicated servers and colo, I hear this argument all the time. No one ever seems to include the Network Engineers, monitoring systems, the routers (better have more than 1!), the switches (distribution and access layers), the maintenance, software licenses (where applicable), customer support, cost of IP addresses, Account Payable, ARIN membership, RADB membership, cross-connects, o…

A lot of the things you mention are presumably covered in the cloud provider's service prices for things other than bandwidth.

Another possible explanation is that the ratio of available (or build-out-able) compute power to available bandwidth they have is such that they just can't give you cheap bandwidth and their pricing reflects that.

Post reply on HN