51–60 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't ECS the AWS optimized version and EKS the more basic stuff?
ECS is their entirely custom container orchestrator. EKS is just hosted Kubernetes with AWS integrations.
EKS is just what everyone uses plugged into AWS.
Can't understand how this should be better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Google GKE offering can operate with a single g1-small worker. That's $0.0257/hr or $0.0070/hr preemptible. $5/mo minimum* This is not even the same ballpark. *(to be fair, the $5/mo minimum does not include a private network and a load balancer, and you will almost definitely need both in order to actually do anything with a cluster.)
You're thinking like a human. There are plenty of organizations where $5/mo and $150/mo are essentially indistinguishable and would not affect decision making in any way.
As an individual this may look expensive, but as a company this is much cheaper than paying the loan of a developer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't ECS the AWS optimized version and EKS the more basic stuff?
No, ECS is a homegrown container orchestration service that has no relationship with Kubernetes. EKS is the optimized-for-AWS version of Kubernetes. There’s also AWS Fargate, which is a more managed version of ECS.
How can EKS be better for AWS customers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think management nodes are free? Master nodes need to run etcd+kube api. These master nodes are multi region available with HA configured, which will be expensive even if you use smaller instances yourself. Google might be free but if you are already in AWS and do not want to manage Kubernetes masters at all and treat your worker nodes like cattle, it is a very nice and enough solution. What integration do you…
> Do you think management nodes are free? ... Google['s management nodes] might be free Indeed they are. Why do you think that is? It could be that they're a great big loss-leader for GKE, or that the costs of GKE management nodes are amortized into the per-cluster-node costs. But neither of these seem to be true. (The pricing of GKE management nodes before they made them free was negligible; and GKE nodes don't cost…
Been waiting for this for... 7 months now since its announcement at ReInvent? My initial impressions are very negative. What even is the point of this? The clusters themselves do nothing, they're just a control plane you pay $144/month for. You need to add nodes from CloudFormation? Is there any integration at all with CodeBuild/CodeDeploy/CodePipeline? No mention anywhere of Ingress... I sure hope that's built in, b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you think management nodes are free? ... Google['s management nodes] might be free Indeed they are. Why do you think that is? It could be that they're a great big loss-leader for GKE, or that the costs of GKE management nodes are amortized into the per-cluster-node costs. But neither of these seem to be true. (The pricing of GKE management nodes before they made them free was negligible; and GKE nodes don't cost…
Last time I checked, Google's public renewable energy footprint was 2x Amazon's, as a proximate for the actual footprint, so it's not that crazy to imagine that there are plenty of slack resources to run small VMs or even Borg tasks for these masters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And plenty of startups that choose between AWS and GCP at a point when those numbers are plenty distinguishable, even though later on they'll become those organizations.
And they will all die pretty quickly for running their infrastructure on a pre emptible instance to save a few dollars. By the way, startups get $100k free credits on each of the major clouds.
This is great cost cutting measure for services where loosing some percentage of compute only induces lag vs taking down the whole service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last time I checked, Google's public renewable energy footprint was 2x Amazon's, as a proximate for the actual footprint, so it's not that crazy to imagine that there are plenty of slack resources to run small VMs or even Borg tasks for these masters.
AWS is 10x larger than GCP so power and compute capacity are really not the issue here, especially for a product that just launched. There's also no reason AWS couldn't adopt the same lightweight kubernetes master processes that GKE uses after all this time.
When electricity is the sole marginal cost of keeping a node powered up from your pool of available machines that can be powered on and off on-demand, these particular words actually mean a lot.
I think the point is that GCP can afford to keep some nodes online even when they don't belong to anyone and just eat the cost. (Eg. those renewable resources like wind and the sun just don't cost anything, so why not spend the energy that is generated from them.)
I'm sure I'm not giving AWS enough credit. Seeing that Google pretty much invented Kubernetes, their cost to come 'up to speed' enough to provide a managed version of it is effectively nil. Their renewable energy is not the only source of so-called "extra capacity," either... they honestly should have had no trouble staffing a team to build out and promote GKE without siphoning off much more than a nominal amount of developer capacity from other offerings that may need it as well.
If it's true that when AWS announced they'd be offering EKS last November, they only had a team of 5 allocated to it, then I guess they deserve a lot of credit for the progress they've made in about 8 months.
That cost to AWS is non-zero (I'm also pretty sure the team has grown and is larger than 5 devs now) and they have every reasonable basis to attempt to recoup it. I don't think many AWS customers will disagree. The adopters who have known they need it for a year or more, many who are happily locked into the ecosystem already, will certainly be lining up to pay for this now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, ECS is a homegrown container orchestration service that has no relationship with Kubernetes. EKS is the optimized-for-AWS version of Kubernetes. There’s also AWS Fargate, which is a more managed version of ECS.
ECS was specifically created to work good with AWS. How can EKS be better for AWS customers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last time I checked, Google's public renewable energy footprint was 2x Amazon's, as a proximate for the actual footprint, so it's not that crazy to imagine that there are plenty of slack resources to run small VMs or even Borg tasks for these masters.
AWS is 10x larger than GCP so power and compute capacity are really not the issue here, especially for a product that just launched. There's also no reason AWS couldn't adopt the same lightweight kubernetes master processes that GKE uses after all this time.
https://electrek.co/2017/11/30/google-is-officially-100-sun-...
Google has been running almost everything, GCP included, under Borg and can squeeze mixed workloads more tightly than the industry average. My understanding is that Amazon's technology is less uniform, but perhaps they have improved things and thus increased their utilization. You are basically printing money when it goes up by even just 1%. Or you can afford to hand out freebies like Kubernetes masters, since they're lost in the noise.