Live data from Hacker News

Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

arador.com

201–210 of 233 posts

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

#201
As others have pointed out, this view is extremely short sighted.

To add to the mix - what if you need a multiple data-center deployment/replication? Both Amazon and Google will provide you a greatly discounted traffic there $0.02 / $0.01. And that's only start. You can easily migrate from one data center to another, with no or little cost attached to it (try that in colo).

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

#202
post #106

Meh. 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…

> I guess I could write a very upset article about how my local mexican restaurant is SERIOUSLY SCREWING ME OVER with their drink prices

I notice that I drink less (too little, even, if I'm out for an evening) because of these prices. If each drink costs a few euros for 200ml glasses, I'd be crazy to drink a liter if at home the cost is somewhere between negligible (tap water) and 1.50 for that whole liter.

What I don't understand is why they can't spread out the profit margin. It'd make me feel a lot better about buying drinks and I'd probably spend more than I do now. Courses are a few euros in ingredients but I don't hesitate to pay €9-15 for it because I know labor is involved and someone has to pay rent. For drinks there is hardly any labor or ingredient cost (assuming all I ask is tap water, which is often since Dutch tap water tastes better than bottled water, and it's not cooled). Prices might also be higher because people don't order it in great quantities, which they might if restaurants wouldn't inflate drink prices to pay for rent (and other such costs), which would be so if you just pay per hour for a seat or something. I heard some places in Italy do that and people were surprised to be charged for it, but it's just itemizing costs and in my opinion more transparent.

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

#203
post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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.

I agree! This is a real issue for cloud providers currently. You shouldn't have to pay for the super-reliable fast network if you don't want it.

And people don't have to! People can self host instead :-)

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

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With an m4.16xl, there's no effective difference between a dedicated or default tenancy instance - only one .16xl can run on a physical hypervisor, which is reflected in the pricing, it's $3.20/hour whether it's dedicated or not: https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/on-demand/ https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/purchasing-options/dedicated-inst... For smaller instances, there is around a 10% increase for dedicated, for example…

An m4.16xl has 8 physical cores; what hypervisor does AWS buy that only has 8 physical cores? My smallest physical servers have 8 physical cores.

An m4.16xl has 32 cores / 64 threads.

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

#205
This subject is never productive on HN because almost every reply argues with a certain use case in mind but people never actually outline that use case. Those who read your post and reply do so with their own use case in mind and obviously what that other person suggested is madness (in your scenario that you never actually verbalize). Ultimately no one learns anything because they all think everyone is in exactly the same scenario as they are. Or maybe they think their personal choice is a "silver bullet". Probably depends on the poster.

Then it all repeats next week.

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

#207
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally, the thing that's super cool about the amazon instances you don't have to do anything with users, authentication, authorization, networking, dns, backups, monitoring, logging, firewall rules, security patches and upgrades. With a bare metal server you have to manage all of that.

Oh my goodness man, have you managed Amazon instances? Setting up VPCs, IGW, IAM, DNS, EBS Snapshots (and deletions until recent lifecycle), custom metric in coudwatch, and Security Groups is a seriously challenging task just to learn the basics, much less do it right, much less automate it. It's not a bed of roses in the physical world either, but you're simply wrong to say it's easy in the "Cloud" and hard in a DC/…

(it was a joke.) There are a zillion things to think about if you're going to have even one machine public on the internet, regardless of the hosting solution. At a small organization there's always that one programmer that's like half sysadmin.

I find it amusing that people pretend without bare metal, you'll get all of that person's time back.

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

#208
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…

Cloud data transfer is very overpriced, no doubt about it.

I'm currently paying 0,017 USD for high quality transfer, with a managed network. I could get even lower pricing by switching to 95th-percentile. Maintenance on server hardware is damn cheap with remote hands and hardware warranty.

It would cost me over five times as much to use GCP with 50 TB traffic/month, all things considered.

Cloud providers are cool, but bandwidth is still very overpriced.

Also, your transit prices are way higher that reality, at least for Europe.

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

#209
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…

Cloud data transfer is very overpriced, no doubt about it. I'm currently paying 0,017 USD for high quality transfer, with a managed network. I could get even lower pricing by switching to 95th-percentile. Maintenance on server hardware is damn cheap with remote hands and hardware warranty. It would cost me over five times as much to use GCP with 50 TB traffic/month, all things considered. Cloud providers are cool, bu…

Actually, we just bought bandwidth for a roll out at Equinix in Munich. $0.50 for Cogent (when added to several other 1G commit on 10G ports in our account. A single 1G commit on a single 10G port would cost more) and we were quoted $1.43 for Level 3 after rejecting a $1.70 quote. Both Cogent and Level 3 were 2yr terms, and in an "on net" location. We are going with another provider besides Level 3 there, but I used these as examples in the parent. You thought it was not "reality", and I refute that.

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

#210
post #202
post #106

Meh. 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…

> I guess I could write a very upset article about how my local mexican restaurant is SERIOUSLY SCREWING ME OVER with their drink prices I notice that I drink less (too little, even, if I'm out for an evening) because of these prices. If each drink costs a few euros for 200ml glasses, I'd be crazy to drink a liter if at home the cost is somewhere between negligible (tap water) and 1.50 for that whole liter. What I do…

That would be workable if humans would be perfectly rational, but they are not. If I set up a pizza shop with totally fair prices across the board, my pizza will cost 8 EUR and the drinks maybe 1 EUR. The pizza shop across the street will however put up a ginormous billboard advertising their 5 EUR pizza with a peace of free pizza bread (and have the 3 EUR drink prices in the small print menu). I get very few customers with my "normalized prices pizza and drinks" billboard. Most people would be just like: WTF? and go to the other shop.
Post reply on HN