Live data from Hacker News

AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

freeman.vc

21–30 of 245 posts

Re: AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

#21

... why does the first graph show some instances as having a negative launch time? Is that meant to indicate errors, or has GCP started preemptively launching instances to anticipate requests?

The y axis here measures duration that it took to successfully spin up the box, where negative results were requests that timed out after 200 seconds. The results are pretty staggering

Re: AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

#22

... why does the first graph show some instances as having a negative launch time? Is that meant to indicate errors, or has GCP started preemptively launching instances to anticipate requests?

I don't know how that value (looks like -50?) was chosen, but it seems to correspond to the launch failures.

Re: AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

#24
post #7

A few weeks ago I needed to change the volume type on an EC2 instance to gp3. Following the instructions, the change happened while the instance was running. I didn't need to reboot or stop the instance, it just changed the type. While the instance was running. I didn't understand how they were able to do this, I had thought volume types mapped to hardware clusters of some kind. And since I didn't understand, I wasn'…

Dunno about AWS, but GCP uses live migration, and will migrate your VM across physical machines as necessary. The disk volumes are all connected over the network, nothing really depends on the actual physical machine your VM is ran on.

Azure, AWS and GCP all have live migration. VMWare has it too.

Re: AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

#25
post #20
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dunno about AWS, but GCP uses live migration, and will migrate your VM across physical machines as necessary. The disk volumes are all connected over the network, nothing really depends on the actual physical machine your VM is ran on.

How does migrating a vm to another physical machine work?

vsphere vmotion has been a thing for years lmao

Re: AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

#26
post #20
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dunno about AWS, but GCP uses live migration, and will migrate your VM across physical machines as necessary. The disk volumes are all connected over the network, nothing really depends on the actual physical machine your VM is ran on.

How does migrating a vm to another physical machine work?

VMware has been doing this for years, it's called vmotion and there is a lot of documentation about it if you are interested (eg https://www.thegeekpub.com/8407/how-vmotion-works/ )

Essential, memory state is copied to the new host, the VM is stunned for a millisecond and the cpu states is copied and resumed on the new host (you may see a dropped ping). All the networking and storage is virtual anyway so that is "moved" (it's not really moved) in the background.

Re: AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

#27
AWS normally has machines sitting idle just waiting for you to use. Thats why they can get you going in a couple of seconds.

GCP on the other hand fills all machines with background jobs. When you want a machine, they need to terminate a background job to make room for you. That background job has a shutdown grace time. Usually thats 30 seconds.

Sometimes, to prevent fragmentation, they actually need to shuffle around many other users to give you the perfect slot - and some of those jobs have start-new-before-stop-old semantics - that's why sometimes the delay is far higher too.

Re: AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

#28
post #20
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dunno about AWS, but GCP uses live migration, and will migrate your VM across physical machines as necessary. The disk volumes are all connected over the network, nothing really depends on the actual physical machine your VM is ran on.

How does migrating a vm to another physical machine work?

Stream the contents of ram from source to dest, pause the source, reprogram the network and copy and memory that changed since the initial stream, resume the dest, destroy the source, profit.

Re: AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

#29

It's meant to say "ephemeral"... right? It's hard to read after that.

ephemeral and ethereal are commonly confused words.

I guess that's fair. It's sort of a smell when someone uses the wrong word (especially in writing) though. It suggests they aren't in industry, throwing ideas around with other folks. The word "ephemeral" is used extensively amongst software engineers.

Re: AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

#30
post #20
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dunno about AWS, but GCP uses live migration, and will migrate your VM across physical machines as necessary. The disk volumes are all connected over the network, nothing really depends on the actual physical machine your VM is ran on.

How does migrating a vm to another physical machine work?

They pause your VM, copy everything about its state over to the new machine, and quickly start the other instance. It's pretty clever. I think there are tricks you can play with machines that have large memory footprints to copy most of it before the pause, and only copy what has changed since then during the pause.

The disks are all on the network, so no need to move anything there.

Post reply on HN