Introducing Network Service Tiers • Hacker News Board

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#201

Post by DisposableMike » Thu, Aug 24, 2017, 1:41 PM UTC

toredash wrote: post #199

DisposableMike wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to use the nomenclature from the Glacier pricing page, where "transfer" is the verb to reference the cost per GB downloading the data from the remote provider. Glacier has an additional "retrieval" cost per GB that B2 and others do not (because they most likely have to physically retrieve a tape/HDD drive with your data on it). https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/pricing/ https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-stor…

Sorry I don't get it. With B2 I have to pay if I want to say download 100GB of data in B2. From what I read, you say this isn't so. But the pricing page state otherwise

B2 has 2 charges: $/GB to store the data, and $/GB to download it (uploading to both is free)

Glacier has 3 charges: $/GB to store the data, $/GB to retrieve the data from "cold" storage, and $/GB to download it.

Retrieval !== downloading ("transfer"). Retrieval is an additional cost to downloading ("transfer").

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#202

Post by and0 » Thu, Aug 24, 2017, 1:53 PM UTC

gumby wrote: post #121

rb808 wrote: 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.

Doesn't Drive also forbid encryption, though?

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#203

Post by josephv » Thu, Aug 24, 2017, 2:04 PM UTC

Cloud neutrality now

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#204

Post by komali2 » Thu, Aug 24, 2017, 4:43 PM UTC

kwindla wrote: post #119

komali2 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely boggles my gorram mind the large-scale engineering that goes into making the internet work. Love the parts in Cryptonomicon where they delve into the sea cables stuff.

Related, one of my favorite Wired Magazine stories -- and favorite pieces of long form journalism, period -- Neal Stephenson goes out on a boat to string some cable: https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/

Oh fuck a wired article by Neal Stephenson? Dude thank you for this!

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#205

Post by kevincox » Thu, Aug 24, 2017, 7:55 PM UTC

abiox wrote: post #84

jerkstate wrote: post #28

How is this different from paying more for a fast lane, which net neutrality is supposed to prevent? Edit: there seems to be a bit of confusion what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the Open Internet Order of 2015 [1] which states: 18. No Paid Prioritization. Paid prioritization occurs when a broadband provider accepts payment (monetary or otherwise) to manage its network in a way that benefits particular content,…

if i'm paying google to host my stuff, should i also be getting bills from comcast, time warner, cox, and every other isp on the planet?

No, Google "pays" those for you. It is included in the "standard" egress pricing.

Disclaimer: I work for Google but not in networking. This comment is just my best guess.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#206

Post by grandalf » Thu, Aug 24, 2017, 9:26 PM UTC

openasocket wrote: post #156

grandalf wrote: post #118

Ironically, this offering is precisely the argument against network neutrality -- different customers need different QoS guarantees.

Not at all. Offering different bandwidths for different prices has nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality is the principle of not discriminating traffic based on destination or content by blocking or throttling.

> not discriminating traffic based on destination or content by blocking or throttling

This assumes all traffic is of the same kind, such as web traffic. For other protocols or use-cases, things like latency have a big impact on the content.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#207

Post by gumby » Thu, Aug 24, 2017, 10:07 PM UTC

and0 wrote: post #202

gumby wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn't Drive also forbid encryption, though?

I just checked the terms of service and they don't at all. They did ban rclone a while back but they said it was because of poor security in rclone itself, and haven't banned anything else.

Interestingly they say you can't use the storage for commercial purposes (whatever that means).

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#208

Post by openasocket » Thu, Aug 24, 2017, 11:07 PM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #206

openasocket wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Offering different bandwidths for different prices has nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality is the principle of not discriminating traffic based on destination or content by blocking or throttling.

> not discriminating traffic based on destination or content by blocking or throttling This assumes all traffic is of the same kind, such as web traffic. For other protocols or use-cases, things like latency have a big impact on the content.

OK. But that doesn't have anything to do with Google offering different networks at different rates.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#209

Post by grandalf » Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 12:23 AM UTC

openasocket wrote: post #208

grandalf wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not discriminating traffic based on destination or content by blocking or throttling This assumes all traffic is of the same kind, such as web traffic. For other protocols or use-cases, things like latency have a big impact on the content.

OK. But that doesn't have anything to do with Google offering different networks at different rates.

Well, customers who demand the higher tier service do so because their content requires it.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#210

Post by openasocket » Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 1:03 AM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #209

openasocket wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. But that doesn't have anything to do with Google offering different networks at different rates.

Well, customers who demand the higher tier service do so because their content requires it.

And Comcast Business charges more than regular internet, that's not a NN violation either. Charging more for more bandwidth is what ISPs do all the time, that doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality has to do with packet discrimination: blocking or throttling traffic based on its content or destination. Google here does neither.