Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

vanityfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

#81

Post by PunchTornado »

tzs wrote: post #69

> To even make a bid, a provider must maintain a distance of at least 150 miles between its data centers, a prerequisite that only Amazon can currently meet I don't get this one. Azure's government data centers are in Virginia, Iowa, Arizona, and Texas. Their DoD data centers are Virginia and Iowa. I don't know where they are in those specific states, but the only pair that could be less than 150 miles apart are Texa…

the author doesn't know what's going on. Google also meets those requirements easily.

Re: It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

#82

Post by PunchTornado »

lmm wrote: post #71
bilbo0s wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guys, please, try to be reasonable here. 150 miles is not an insert for Amazon. I'm not a general, but even I can see that 150 miles is military sense.

150 specifically just happens to be the military requirement? Not 100 or 200, but 150, which just happens to be the distance that Amazon offers?

? it is a minimum of 150 miles. And no, this is not the distance that Amazon offers, Google and Azure also can match this offer.

Re: It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

#83

Post by julianozen »

webmaven wrote: post #62
julianozen wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon employee here so I am biased. While multi-cloud might give you more redundancy, it: a) prevents you from using any of the custom features that many each service great (for instance lambda, aurora, dynamodb or in the case of google cloud, some of their ML tech). Might as well use on-prem if you’re not going to using AWS/Azure/GSuite feature on top of IaaS b) requires you to set up multiple alarms, logs, metrics…

> d)while this may give you long term negotiating power, you will likely just save more money with long term exclusive contracts. Uh, This would be true, if one expected prices (and technology) to remain stable, but since that isn't the case, maintaining re -negotiating power is quite a bit more advantageous than you imply.

Yeah not sure. I think it depends on the contracts. Maintaining infrastructure on 3 cloud providers that don’t work the same is costly.

All of these services provide pretty steep discounts (as a percentage of original costs) for customers who are able to provide accurate capacity forecasts and make long term commitments.

And the while the “technology gets cheaper” argument is true, I believe it is generally understood that while AWS/Azure/Google can use this trend at the scale they operate at (and then pass the savings to the customers), most cloud customers would spend more money hiring additional engineers to maintain more complicated infrastructure then they would save trying to take advantage of this trend.

Re: It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

#84

Post by jstanley »

culturestate wrote: post #72
jstanley wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the interface for such a search publicly accessible?

This[1] is the first Google result for "g cloud provider search" - I believe it's what GP is referencing. 1. https://www.digitalmarketplace.service.gov.uk/buyers/direct-...

Neat, thanks!

Re: It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

#85

Post by partiallypro »

deadbunny wrote: post #78
partiallypro wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A government contract where the sole company that can ever win the contract also says that fail overs to other providers is bad. So if Amazon goes down, the DoD is shit out of luck. I don't see how that's not a national security problem. Not only that, but after the $10 Billion is expended the DoD is vendor locked. How people don't see this as a major problem/cronyism is baffling. The vendor lock itself is bad enough…

Hows it any different from every other single provider contract ever? Everything's in an IBM DC (or three), they fuck something up? It's down.

Because in this case it relates to national security and if the provider goes down the US is potentially at more risk than it would have been if it had multi-vendor fail overs. I can understand it not being justified for some government programs or companies due to expense or impracticality, but the DoD has a massive budget and a huge pool of resources. Not having multi-vendor fail overs just seems irresponsible given the stakes.

Re: It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

#86

Post by tooltalk »

bilbo0s wrote: post #13
oliverx0 wrote: post #11

Seems a bit too tailored though - "To even make a bid, a provider must maintain a distance of at least 150 miles between its data centers, a prerequisite that only Amazon can currently meet. JEDI also asks for “32 GB of RAM”—the precise specification of Amazon’s services. (Microsoft, by contrast, offers only 28 GB, and Google provides 30 GB.) In places, JEDI echoes Amazon’s own language: It calls for a “ruggedized” s…

Guys, please, try to be reasonable here. 150 miles is not an insert for Amazon. I'm not a general, but even I can see that 150 miles is military sense.

There is a 50-miles requirement for financial companies that came into effect after the 9/11. So I think 150 miles isn't all that unreasonable for military.

Re: It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

#87

Post by Spooky23 »

jeffreybezos wrote: post #53
Spooky23 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s probably 150 miles within an availability zone.

Datacenters in the same AZ are much closer than 150 miles, right?

No idea Jeff. :)

I do know the Iowa is >150 miles from Ashburn, VA, so Google Cloud and Azure should have been able to meet that requirement.

Re: It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

#88

Post by dharmab »

raverbashing wrote: post #73
jchw wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"JEDI also asks for “32 GB of RAM”—the precise specification of Amazon’s services. (Microsoft, by contrast, offers only 28 GB, and Google provides 30 GB.)" What? Microsoft only provides 28 GB of RAM, and Google only 30 GB? I'm pretty sure neither Azure nor GCP even launched with limits that strict.

Well they probably have an upper tier. If it costs the same it's to be seen. But yeah, if Google or Microsoft engineers can't create a custom instance with 32GB of memory then they shouldn't get the bid

While the Azure D series and G series are 14/28/56/112/140, the F series is available with base 2 increments.

Re: It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

#89

Post by dantiberian »

oliverx0 wrote: post #11

Seems a bit too tailored though - "To even make a bid, a provider must maintain a distance of at least 150 miles between its data centers, a prerequisite that only Amazon can currently meet. JEDI also asks for “32 GB of RAM”—the precise specification of Amazon’s services. (Microsoft, by contrast, offers only 28 GB, and Google provides 30 GB.) In places, JEDI echoes Amazon’s own language: It calls for a “ruggedized” s…

This took about 30 seconds to fact check. Google offers an n1-standard-32 with 32GB RAM, and Azure offers A4MS and B4MS with 32GB of RAM. I can't even find any instances from either provider for 28 or 30 GB.

https://cloud.google.com/compute/pricing#predefined_machine_... https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/virtual-ma...

Re: It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

#90

Post by deadbunny »

partiallypro wrote: post #85
deadbunny wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hows it any different from every other single provider contract ever? Everything's in an IBM DC (or three), they fuck something up? It's down.

Because in this case it relates to national security and if the provider goes down the US is potentially at more risk than it would have been if it had multi-vendor fail overs. I can understand it not being justified for some government programs or companies due to expense or impracticality, but the DoD has a massive budget and a huge pool of resources. Not having multi-vendor fail overs just seems irresponsible give…

Basically every mil contract is single provider. Doesn't matter who the provider.
Post reply on HN