Live data from Hacker News

Introducing Network Service Tiers

cloudplatform.googleblog.com

131–140 of 215 posts

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#131
post #83
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to back up my photos to AWS Glacier before noticing that retrieval costs are multiple times the storage cost. I guess that is possibly OK for a backup but scared me into a physical alternative. http://liangzan.net/aws-glacier-calculator/

Check out Google's Coldline https://cloud.google.com/storage/archival/

Google Glacier, aka G2. I checked it out.

I like that I don't have to do calculus to understand how I'll be billed, or write my own retrieval software.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#132

I quite like the way Google has drawn the map here-since no cables reach from India to Europe, they've split the map there making the paths easier to trace between Asia and NA. https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QvF57n-55Cs/WZypui8H8zI/AAAAAAAAE... Compare with the difficulties of https://cloud.google.com/images/locations/edgepoint.png Elegant and subtle work. Just like the networking.

Interesting observation.

You know when I saw that map it made me wonder which nation (or nations) those two large point of presences represent in the Gulf. It's Iran, isn't it?

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#133
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could simply ban adult websites in their ToS, I doubt this is the reason. Also seed boxes are nowhere near useful if you still would pay $10 / TB and at the same time can get traffic for free at OVH or Online/Scaleway. It's most likely vendor lock-in and people are dumb enough to pay for it.

The reason, is that bandwidth is a solid profit center for the cloud majors. Amazon initiated it, the rest are going along in cartel fashion, nobody wants to disrupt one of the lucrative angles by driving that profit center toward zero. There's no other rational explanation why Azure or Google aren't hammering AWS on bandwidth cost as a competitive angle. They're basically conspiring in the industrial sense, no diffe…

High bandwidth costs also make it more costly to move some of the data processing to companies which offer very cheap dedicated servers.

--

But it's not fair to say that price from Google is high just because some random hosting company gives you unmetered 500mbs for $99/month. As we have seen with many unlimited cloud storage offerings, some companies do unsustainable offers to attract customers. There are different strategies behind this. Some just count on that majority of customers won't use everything they could. Others know the price hike is inevitable, but believe customers will still stuck.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#134
post #50

A long standing complaint of mine is that Cloud egress pricing severely limits the usefulness of compute. If I want to say process some visual effects on a large (1TB) ProRes video, I might spend $1 on the compute but $100 on the egress getting it back. Unfortunately these changes don't really resolve that problem. "Standard" pricing is a paltry 20% less. That 1TB video egress still costs $80 and for that price I can…

I wonder what that same 1 TB of data costs on the "open market" (or how it is even priced). Say I'm a smallish ISP on the east coast and want to send 1 TB to another smallish ISP on the west coast. I probably have a contract with, I don't know, AT&T or whoever owns the cables (I'm from Europe so I have no clue, in Germany it would be Telekom). I'm guessing it would probably cost cents (and that would bring my data ac…

You don't buy bytes, you buy pipes. Typically, you buy say 1Gbit of transit and you can put as much or as little data through that pipe as you want.

You can get a gigabit pipe from Hurricane Electric or FDCServers for $400/month. In a month it can take 327TB of data, so the cost of 1TB is ~$1.20.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#135
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice find. What is the ping time from India to Iran? That is a long trip for a packet.

~260ms. The route was Chennai-Amsterdam-Jordan-Iran https://pastebin.com/nCT0VA2e

I imagine TheSockStealer was wondering about India to Iran ping time through Google's private network (the one in the diagram upthread), which doesn't appear have a connection from Chennai to Amsterdam.

The packets in the trace you posted were presumably routed by someone besides Google. Or did you run that traceroute from inside GCP?

Or I could be misunderstanding the diagram and maybe Google has some connections that aren't shown. I don't really get what the ">100" in "edge points of presence >100" means in the legend.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#136
post #83
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to back up my photos to AWS Glacier before noticing that retrieval costs are multiple times the storage cost. I guess that is possibly OK for a backup but scared me into a physical alternative. http://liangzan.net/aws-glacier-calculator/

Check out Google's Coldline https://cloud.google.com/storage/archival/

99% availability seems not so "highly available" as they call it. It's just SLA, but that means if the service is down for 7 hours every month it still meets the availability SLA.

I know it may not matter that much for backup, I'm just wondering why would they set the bar so low - i.e. how do they organize the storage that they had to set it so low. I'm guessing MAIDs but I still don't get it.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#137
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They announced the new prices[1]. There doesn't seem to be a price increase for most scenarios, and the price is slightly lower for some. There appears to be a $ 0.01 increase if you currently push more than 1 TB, but less than 10 TB of traffic across continents or within regions like Asia or Oceania. [1]: https://cloud.google.com/network-tiers/pricing#premium_tier_...

So you're saying that the fact that they have new prices now refutes my suggestion that there will be price hikes in the future? I'm saying Google has a habit of pricing something, and then hiking the price later. I said specifically, above, that this announcement is early warning of price hikes: "migrate to standard tier now before the price hikes". Your rebuttal is "but the prices right now haven't gone up"?

One price increase for a beta product hardly makes for a habit of increasing prices. If anything, prices in cloud computing have continuously been getting lower across the entire industry, and with margins being fairly large and the market getting more and more competitive, I imagine that trend will continue.

If they'd wanted to increase prices for the premium tier, this would've been the time to do so. Instead, the kept the prices roughly the same, with small savings for some scenarios and a tiny increase for edge-cases, while introducing a cheaper tier that has feature parity with the competition and is quite a bit cheaper. Whatever your past issues with Google, I think you're way off on this.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#138
post #121
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to back up my photos to AWS Glacier before noticing that retrieval costs are multiple times the storage cost. I guess that is possibly OK for a backup but scared me into a physical alternative. http://liangzan.net/aws-glacier-calculator/

FWIW Amazon drive will store any number of photos (or anything it thinks is a photo -- I havent looked to see if it looks at the file name or checks to see if it's a valid jpeg/png) for free. So if you're really backing up your photos that's an option.

Yeah, I organized my backup around it. Then they decided that maybe they won't offer unlimited storage after all, and I better pay up or they are going to delete my files. Not falling for that again.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#139
post #50

A long standing complaint of mine is that Cloud egress pricing severely limits the usefulness of compute. If I want to say process some visual effects on a large (1TB) ProRes video, I might spend $1 on the compute but $100 on the egress getting it back. Unfortunately these changes don't really resolve that problem. "Standard" pricing is a paltry 20% less. That 1TB video egress still costs $80 and for that price I can…

I wonder what that same 1 TB of data costs on the "open market" (or how it is even priced). Say I'm a smallish ISP on the east coast and want to send 1 TB to another smallish ISP on the west coast. I probably have a contract with, I don't know, AT&T or whoever owns the cables (I'm from Europe so I have no clue, in Germany it would be Telekom). I'm guessing it would probably cost cents (and that would bring my data ac…

In the open market you either get transit (you buy bandwidth from a carrier) or peer (you exchange traffic with a provider) with other networks.

There are also IXs, where you can peer with a lot of different networks in one place (DE-CIX is the biggest for example, located in Frankfurt).

Transit is billed 95th percentile, that means if you want to commit to 1 GbE on a 10 GbE uplink you pay the 1 GbE outright and can burst to the 10 GbE the uplink provides you. If you are over 1 GbE at the end of the month (95th) you will be billed the remaining mbps with a per mbps pricing.

Now, to answer your question, it basically works like that: You are present in NYC and you want to reach a customer on the west coast that uses Comcast. You would buy transit in your NYC facility from Comcast to get a direct path/way to them. They will take care of everything else. You don't have to lease/rent/buy the dark fibre (cables) from the east to the west coast, the provider (in this case comcast) is doing that already. If you don't buy transit from comcast, but instead form some cheap carrier (say cogent) they will do the same BUT not guarantee a specific bandwidth to comcast, you only would get 10 GbE to cogent, but you don't know if you can push the 10 GbE to comcast.

Transit providers also vary vastly on price. DTAG (Telekom) for example is ridiculously expensive (5x the prices of regular transit providers).

Let's say you want an decent pipe (transit) with 1 GbE commit on 10 GbE, you would pay something like $500-$600 for the 1 GbE commit and after that around $0,50 per every additional mbps. Additionally you need a router, preferably two (redundancy). Fiber cables, transceivers, etc. All those things are very expensive.

What you also notice is that you can't get transit with a TB billing, but most providers offer you per GB/TB billing. They need to commit to a certain amount and hope they calculated well in regards to their commitments and usage etc etc. Anyways, $80-120 per TB, the cloud providers are charging, is a bad joke.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#140
post #50

A long standing complaint of mine is that Cloud egress pricing severely limits the usefulness of compute. If I want to say process some visual effects on a large (1TB) ProRes video, I might spend $1 on the compute but $100 on the egress getting it back. Unfortunately these changes don't really resolve that problem. "Standard" pricing is a paltry 20% less. That 1TB video egress still costs $80 and for that price I can…

I wonder what that same 1 TB of data costs on the "open market" (or how it is even priced). Say I'm a smallish ISP on the east coast and want to send 1 TB to another smallish ISP on the west coast. I probably have a contract with, I don't know, AT&T or whoever owns the cables (I'm from Europe so I have no clue, in Germany it would be Telekom). I'm guessing it would probably cost cents (and that would bring my data ac…

With enough competition a smallish ISP would pay as low as $0.25-$0.40 per mbps per month, which is on an order of $1 per TB. More expensive offers are like $1-$2 per mbps per month, which is still a single digit per TB.
Post reply on HN