Two things keep coming up while comparing GCP and AWS: * This accomplishment would not have been possible for our three-person team of engineers with out Google Cloud (AWS is too low level, hard to work with and does not scale well). * We’ve also managed to cut our infrastructure costs in half during this time period (Per minute billing, seamless autoscaling, performance, sustained usage discounts, ... )
> AWS . . . does not scale well
GCP may have some advantages over AWS, but the reverse is also true and it's hard to take what you say seriously when you say something like that.
Has anybody had successful experience deploying docker containers on appengine ? Last time i tried, i had such a bad experience in terms of deployment speed ( time to build the image, then upload it, then waiting for the stuff to deploy) that i reverted to managing my own gce instance. But maybe i had bad luck..
I just tried to move a rails app to appengine. It uses the flexible environment (eg, docker). It took like 10 or 15 minutes to deploy, each time.
Two things keep coming up while comparing GCP and AWS: * This accomplishment would not have been possible for our three-person team of engineers with out Google Cloud (AWS is too low level, hard to work with and does not scale well). * We’ve also managed to cut our infrastructure costs in half during this time period (Per minute billing, seamless autoscaling, performance, sustained usage discounts, ... )
> AWS . . . does not scale well GCP may have some advantages over AWS, but the reverse is also true and it's hard to take what you say seriously when you say something like that.
Totally. Also…
> AWS is too low level
It seems very strange to paint AWS with such a broad brush, considering that AWS has tons of services at various levels of abstraction (including high-level abstractions like Elastic Beanstalk and AWS Lambda).
The "inelastic" might have been a shot at AWS. When pressed, the AWS people do use phrases like "pre-warming", "over provisioning" and "advance notice" around their ELB/ALB setup and ECS. Google's cloud salespeople pitch that they don't require any of that.
Curious if the need for pre-warming ELB/ALB still applies. Last time this came up, an AWS employee mentioned it is no longer necessary ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14052079 ), but would be nice if this was documented.
I don't want to dox myself but about a year ago when my employer forgot to notify AWS about switching our production traffic (about 5K rps at that time) from one ELB to another we failed requests for several minutes before we decided to just switch back to the old ELB then ask them to do a prewarming before we switched again.
Getting pro GCP articles to the top of HN must no-doubt be a high priority for the Google marketing team. This is the nature of modern advertising, sneakily trying to subvert your thinking by masquerading as something else.
> AWS . . . does not scale well GCP may have some advantages over AWS, but the reverse is also true and it's hard to take what you say seriously when you say something like that.
Totally. Also… > AWS is too low level It seems very strange to paint AWS with such a broad brush, considering that AWS has tons of services at various levels of abstraction (including high-level abstractions like Elastic Beanstalk and AWS Lambda).
Sorry to not add context. I was referring to the use case the author of article was talking about: running a website: You need to stitch: ELB / EC2 / Database / Caching / Service Splitting / Auth / Scaling / ... Where as on Google Cloud, App Engine covers most of the points.
I was sure this was about some multiplayer game thing, but no, it's a crossword. Not entirely sure what they are even scaling here, I was expecting an article about a CDN..
The game allows you to sync your game progress across multiple devices and it's subscription based so a CDN wouldn't do much help there.
Also, realtime multiplayer crosswords are coming! I'll be speaking at GothamGo this year about that exact topic.
Totally. Also… > AWS is too low level It seems very strange to paint AWS with such a broad brush, considering that AWS has tons of services at various levels of abstraction (including high-level abstractions like Elastic Beanstalk and AWS Lambda).
Sorry to not add context. I was referring to the use case the author of article was talking about: running a website: You need to stitch: ELB / EC2 / Database / Caching / Service Splitting / Auth / Scaling / ... Where as on Google Cloud, App Engine covers most of the points.
Totally. Also… > AWS is too low level It seems very strange to paint AWS with such a broad brush, considering that AWS has tons of services at various levels of abstraction (including high-level abstractions like Elastic Beanstalk and AWS Lambda).
Sorry to not add context. I was referring to the use case the author of article was talking about: running a website: You need to stitch: ELB / EC2 / Database / Caching / Service Splitting / Auth / Scaling / ... Where as on Google Cloud, App Engine covers most of the points.
Two things keep coming up while comparing GCP and AWS: * This accomplishment would not have been possible for our three-person team of engineers with out Google Cloud (AWS is too low level, hard to work with and does not scale well). * We’ve also managed to cut our infrastructure costs in half during this time period (Per minute billing, seamless autoscaling, performance, sustained usage discounts, ... )
> AWS . . . does not scale well GCP may have some advantages over AWS, but the reverse is also true and it's hard to take what you say seriously when you say something like that.
Adding more context. Sorry for missing it out in first place. I mostly work in Big Data Space. Google Clouds Big Data stuff is built for Streaming / Storing / Processing / Querying / Machine Learning at Internet Scale data (PubSub / Bigtable / Dataflow / BigQuery / Cloud ML). AWS scales to terabyte level loads. But, beyond that, its hard and super costly. Google's services autoscale to Petabyte levels / millions of users smoothly (for example BigQuery / Load Balancers). On AWS, it requires pre warming / allocating capacity beforehand and that costs tons of money. In companies working at that scale, that usual saying is "to keep scaling, keep throwing cash at AWS". This is not a problem with Google.