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

2020 Cloud Report: AWS vs. GCP vs. Azure

cockroachlabs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 124 posts

Re: 2020 Cloud Report: AWS vs. GCP vs. Azure

#71

Post by mehrdada »

devy wrote: post #69
derefr wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elastic rates are really what you should be comparing when using cloud IaaS services, though. That's where the price works out in favor of using cloud IaaS hosts in the first place, after all. If you have a stable set of instances and a known lifetime for them, then, before trying to calculate whether AWS or GCP is cheaper, step back and plug those same numbers into a regular non-cloud DC managed-hardware-leasing pri…

> a regular non-cloud DC managed-hardware-leasing pricing You have to factor in the total cost of ownership (TCO) to make a fair comparison, which in almost ALL the cases, you are more than likely to overspend on bare metal boxes on your own DC. Some of the TCO components are: - DC staff salaries - Electricity - Networking bandwidth - SLA guarantee (yes this a hidden cost, e.g. if your DC power is out, you owe your c…

> - SLA guarantee (yes this a hidden cost, e.g. if your DC power is out, you owe your customers fees depending on your SLA).

But Amazon and GCP can go down too and their SLA does not necessarily fully insure against your SLA.

Re: 2020 Cloud Report: AWS vs. GCP vs. Azure

#72

Post by devy »

mehrdada wrote: post #71
devy wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a regular non-cloud DC managed-hardware-leasing pricing You have to factor in the total cost of ownership (TCO) to make a fair comparison, which in almost ALL the cases, you are more than likely to overspend on bare metal boxes on your own DC. Some of the TCO components are: - DC staff salaries - Electricity - Networking bandwidth - SLA guarantee (yes this a hidden cost, e.g. if your DC power is out, you owe your c…

> - SLA guarantee (yes this a hidden cost, e.g. if your DC power is out, you owe your customers fees depending on your SLA). But Amazon and GCP can go down too and their SLA does not necessarily fully insure against your SLA.

Yes, everyone could and will go down at one point or another. Are you saying that your in-house team can manage infrastructure equally well or better than these big public Cloud vendors? They have thousands of site reliability engineers, don't they?

The crux of this is how do you compare in managing site reliability. Perhaps you have a world class team you could do that better than yes my point there is moot. But 99% of the time, it's not.

Re: 2020 Cloud Report: AWS vs. GCP vs. Azure

#73

Post by johannes1234321 »

etxm wrote: post #27
kyrra wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its rather expensive (and time consuming) to produce reports like this. They are doing it to generate leads.

Narrator: No they aren’t. They’re going to generate unsubs and spam reports.

Those can be filtered out quickly. Remaining are potentially valuable leads.

Re: 2020 Cloud Report: AWS vs. GCP vs. Azure

#74

Post by johannes1234321 »

chirau wrote: post #19
universenz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notice how the responses are honest ones, where people would rather skip the report than supply their real email address? The target demographic are tech savvy, so 90% of the leads are going to be 10MM email addresses. The popularity of this thread illustrate that there is a need/use for this content - so Cockroach nailed the bait, but have massively overshot the type of trap required to convert these savvy mice.

That 10minutemail workaround is easy to block, just require a business domain and a use a verification link.

It's even simpler to not care - somebody using 10minutemail wouldn't react anyways, thus they send out some automated mail after a while and if there's no reaction kick the address of their active leads ... tracking down invalid mail domains is effort, sending out a few mails more is no effort.

Re: 2020 Cloud Report: AWS vs. GCP vs. Azure

#75

Post by latch »

devy wrote: post #72
mehrdada wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - SLA guarantee (yes this a hidden cost, e.g. if your DC power is out, you owe your customers fees depending on your SLA). But Amazon and GCP can go down too and their SLA does not necessarily fully insure against your SLA.

Yes, everyone could and will go down at one point or another. Are you saying that your in-house team can manage infrastructure equally well or better than these big public Cloud vendors? They have thousands of site reliability engineers, don't they? The crux of this is how do you compare in managing site reliability. Perhaps you have a world class team you could do that better than yes my point there is moot. But 99%…

Amazon has done a fantastic job of making people think the choice is between them or managing your own infrastructure. Your concerns make no sense in the context that your parent presented: a managed DC.

And, frankly, your parent was being generous. Even if you only look at elastic workloads, the workload has to be a) extremely elastic and b) not fall into some pretty common patterns for cloud to make any kind of sense.

Re: 2020 Cloud Report: AWS vs. GCP vs. Azure

#76

Post by derefr »

devy wrote: post #69
derefr wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elastic rates are really what you should be comparing when using cloud IaaS services, though. That's where the price works out in favor of using cloud IaaS hosts in the first place, after all. If you have a stable set of instances and a known lifetime for them, then, before trying to calculate whether AWS or GCP is cheaper, step back and plug those same numbers into a regular non-cloud DC managed-hardware-leasing pri…

> a regular non-cloud DC managed-hardware-leasing pricing You have to factor in the total cost of ownership (TCO) to make a fair comparison, which in almost ALL the cases, you are more than likely to overspend on bare metal boxes on your own DC. Some of the TCO components are: - DC staff salaries - Electricity - Networking bandwidth - SLA guarantee (yes this a hidden cost, e.g. if your DC power is out, you owe your c…

Note, I didn't say "your own DC", I said managed hosting. As in, leasing a physical 2U server from a DC provider (just not a cloud DC provider), that you "temporarily own" (sort of like you "temporarily own" a condo you're leasing), but where the DC staff still has BMC access to the box, and will handle hardware going bad, etc., so you never have to drive out to the DC.

You know, the primary offering of DC providers like Softlayer, Hetzner, etc.

With a managed service, "utilities" (salaries, electricity) are factored into the lease. And bandwidth, as it turns out, is cheap-enough that many DCs will give it to you unmetered, since you can't use enough through the limited links they give you to dent their uplink.

Re: 2020 Cloud Report: AWS vs. GCP vs. Azure

#77

Post by campers »

DDerTyp wrote: post #48
cdoxsey wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meltdown and Spectre did a real number on the c5 and m5 instance types. Amazon's original fix reduced performance substantially, which lot's of people noticed, but no one knew why till the vulnerabilities were announced. Meanwhile Google built a clever workaround which minimized the pain. It was really a mic-drop moment from Google and I wish someone would dig in deep and tell the whole story. At this point I'm sure…

Interesting! Do you know of any resource where I can read more about this?

There was a few interesting bits in a post the other days about their new compute VM class, #4 in particular https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/compute/understanding... Its pretty light on details but was news to me.

Re: 2020 Cloud Report: AWS vs. GCP vs. Azure

#78

Post by paulddraper »

scarface74 wrote: post #40
Scaevolus wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wouldn't typically run your database VMs on spot/interruptible instances.

You wouldn’t typically run your databases in a cloud environment on your own VMs - you would use a managed service.

I'm still waiting on that managed PostgreSQL 12 service....

Re: 2020 Cloud Report: AWS vs. GCP vs. Azure

#79

Post by 9nGQluzmnq3M »

DDerTyp wrote: post #48
cdoxsey wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meltdown and Spectre did a real number on the c5 and m5 instance types. Amazon's original fix reduced performance substantially, which lot's of people noticed, but no one knew why till the vulnerabilities were announced. Meanwhile Google built a clever workaround which minimized the pain. It was really a mic-drop moment from Google and I wish someone would dig in deep and tell the whole story. At this point I'm sure…

Interesting! Do you know of any resource where I can read more about this?

The tech is called Retpoline, and this blog has some pointers: https://www.blog.google/topics/google-cloud/protecting-our-g...

Re: 2020 Cloud Report: AWS vs. GCP vs. Azure

#80

Post by 9nGQluzmnq3M »

campers wrote: post #77
DDerTyp wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting! Do you know of any resource where I can read more about this?

There was a few interesting bits in a post the other days about their new compute VM class, #4 in particular https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/compute/understanding... Its pretty light on details but was news to me.

This is not related to Spectre/Meltdown, which was over a year ago.
Post reply on HN