Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
171–180 of 233 posts
Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
#172Earlier 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…
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.
And mixed drinks are more like a 4x markup. Lower at the high end even. Not sure where they pulled that number from. If it's anything like the coffee total, they'er comparing the garbage ingredients people typically use at home against the highest quality ingredients in the best places.
Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
#173Earlier 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.
Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
#174Meh. The big cloud platforms offer a rich selection of different offerings, which (just like in every other industry) cross subsidize each other. When I go to a restaurant, I don't expect that they will be making the same profit margin on every item on the final bill, and in fact, they almost never do. Drinks tend to have a very high profit margin, some labour intensive items may be a break even at best, and the comp…
Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
#175I 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…
Use google cloud or softlayer and the same machine is $1500 a month. It's no secret that AWS is a rip off on instance pricing. Use the competitors if you worry so much about pricing.
Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
#176AWS, GCE, azure seem like the platforms of yesteryear in all dimensions when compared to something like packet.net. I think these providers could be in a rock and a hard place due to the unsuitability of native Linux containers for secure multi-tenancy. This does leave a nice runway for Joyent as both a provider and software vendor for at least a little bit, but I think packet.net is really going to change the economy of infra.
Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
#177Earlier 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 benefit of this has can't be understated. In SE Asia connecting to their Taiwan region from most places I'm literally just at the mercy of a few local hops at level 3 due to their extensive remote peering. Staying on the Google network is also interesting to observe when connecting between Google Compute data centers.
AWS and Azure behave considerably different.
Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
#178Worth noting that Digital Ocean doesn't actually bill for bandwidth. They say they do in their Droplet template descriptions, but they really don't. I've pushed many many terabytes to/from my Droplets and never received a bill for it. But you need to cap your individual Droplet bandwidth using something like tc[0] around ~400MB/s or they'll shut off the network interface (DDoS detection). [0] http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Tr…
Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
#179As 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…
I suppose part of the issue is marketing. The customer reads the bill as "bandwidth." Would consumers understand better if there was a separate "network infrastructure" line item? Would they accept differntial pricing for network quality or class? Dont see why we'd find out as long as theres no downward pricing pressure.
Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing
#180Router? Gateway? Firewall? Network Access Control? VLANs? Ability to manage all this through declarative version controlled code w/ rollback? The costs of doing those (well) yourself are not cheap. Getting them from a provider that's certified to do them well while giving you software control also isn't cheap. You're comparing cost of gas per gallon to to expense of miles driven per gallon. Pretty sure on your IRS or…
Exactly. Olive Garden is $10 for a pasta plate. I could have bought the ingredients for less than $2. It takes times and skill to turn the ingredients into something useful. Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are IaaS/PaaS, not ISPs.
Sell food at cost!
/s