Well, the thing with Google is whenever their service does not get enough users to reach their target revenue then they can suddenly shutdown in the following year. This is the reason why I would always go with AWS or Azure and GCP the last choice.
Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
81–90 of 371 posts
Re: Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
#82“ According to the Amazon Prime Day blog post, DynamoDB processes 126 million queries per second at peak. Spanner on the other hand processes 3 billion queries per second at peak, which is more than 20x higher, and has more than 12 exabytes of data under management.” This comparison seems to be not exactly fair? Amazon’s 126 million queries per second was purely for Amazon-related services serving Prime Day generatin…
We shared some details about Gmail's migration to Spanner in this year's developer keynote at Google Cloud Next [0] - to my knowledge, the first time that story has been publicly talked about. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=268jdNwH6AM
I tried to find it in this video, but failed. Could you please share a time stamp on where to look?
It’s a pretty big deal if Gmail migrated to GCP-provided Spanner(not to an internal Spanner instance) and sounds like he kind of vote of confidence GCP and Cloud Spanner could benefit from: might I suggest to write about it? It’s easier to digest and harder to miss than an hour-long keynote video with no time stamps.
And so just to confirm: Gmail is on Cloud Spanner for the backend?
Re: Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
#83“ According to the Amazon Prime Day blog post, DynamoDB processes 126 million queries per second at peak. Spanner on the other hand processes 3 billion queries per second at peak, which is more than 20x higher, and has more than 12 exabytes of data under management.” This comparison seems to be not exactly fair? Amazon’s 126 million queries per second was purely for Amazon-related services serving Prime Day generatin…
> I will say that it does show a vote of confidence to say that Photos, Gmail and Ads use GCP infra,
I'm not sure? I guess I'm mostly not sure what "gcp infra" means there. The blog post says
"Spanner is used ubiquitously inside of Google, supporting services such as; Ads, Gmail and Photos."
But there's google-internal spanner, and gcp spanner. A service using spanner at Google isn't necessarily using gcp. (No clue about photos, Gmail, etc)
Granted, from what I gather, there's a lot more similarity between spanner & gcp spanner than e.g. borg and kubernetes.
Re: Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
#84If only someone could actually run and publish comparison benchmarks, but DeWitt clause by Spanner makes it impossible.
Can you go into more detail on this? I assumed almost everyone using systems like this that tout scalability was doing benchmarks.
Benchmarks vary quite a bit based on specific workloads. That is why open benchmarking helps where any person can validate the benchmarks. Google enforces De-Witt clause which makes it impossible for a third party to publish such benchmarks. Quite a few cloud providers don't restrict that now.
Re: Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get the skepticism, but these core SaaS offerings tend to have a much longer support life than consumer products. Google’s Bigtable is still around as a cloud offering, and it’s almost 20 years old at this point. Spanner is used for a lot of internal Google services, too. Spanner has basically been eating all the other databases Google uses internally. Nom nom nom, every database that used to be something else is n…
Remember AppEngine?
Not sure what you mean by “remember AppEngine”.
Re: Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
#86“ According to the Amazon Prime Day blog post, DynamoDB processes 126 million queries per second at peak. Spanner on the other hand processes 3 billion queries per second at peak, which is more than 20x higher, and has more than 12 exabytes of data under management.” This comparison seems to be not exactly fair? Amazon’s 126 million queries per second was purely for Amazon-related services serving Prime Day generatin…
We shared some details about Gmail's migration to Spanner in this year's developer keynote at Google Cloud Next [0] - to my knowledge, the first time that story has been publicly talked about. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=268jdNwH6AM
Thanks! Looks really interesting.
link with time-stamp:
Re: Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to be that guy, but why lambdas? I'm genuinely curious. I've never found the "cost savings" (big air quotes) worth it in comparison to the increased configuration/permissions complexity. Especially when Fargate exists, where you can just throw a docker container at AWS, what do Lambdas add? The zero scaling?
Your mileage may vary, but I think in majority of the cases Fargate is going to be significantly more expensive than Lambda.
But at low request volumes, either is a rounding error to a medium size enterprise, and for personal projects IMO Lambda is a huge PITA.
Re: Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Free Tier is completely irrelevant here, though. The very reason someone might use Spanner is its excellent scalability. I don't believe there is any reason to use it for smaller projects other than education. The customers who will use Spanners are those for whom CockroachDB is not enough, for example. For everybody with databases that are not that huge PostgreSQL will do just fine.
Very true, but most people do not yet no about scale-to-zero pay-for-what-you-use sql server clouds with a free tier like CockroachDB and neon. They think that you must pay $5 a month to run a sql server, which has been the case until very recently, so they go with no sql options to get the free tier. Edit: actualy Spanner looks like another CockroachDB. You use sql to interact with it. In which case I can see many p…
> Edit: actualy Spanner looks like another CockroachDB. You use sql to interact with it. In which case I can see many people who would want to use this with a free tier for hobby projects. ie. in between education and production development.
Pedantically, cockroachDB is another spanner. It was made by Google devs who left Google having previously used spanner, and intentionally made something similar to spanner (ish, lots of handwaving happening here)
Re: Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
#89“ According to the Amazon Prime Day blog post, DynamoDB processes 126 million queries per second at peak. Spanner on the other hand processes 3 billion queries per second at peak, which is more than 20x higher, and has more than 12 exabytes of data under management.” This comparison seems to be not exactly fair? Amazon’s 126 million queries per second was purely for Amazon-related services serving Prime Day generatin…
> I will say that it does show a vote of confidence to say that Photos, Gmail and Ads use GCP infra, I'm not sure? I guess I'm mostly not sure what "gcp infra" means there. The blog post says "Spanner is used ubiquitously inside of Google, supporting services such as; Ads, Gmail and Photos." But there's google-internal spanner, and gcp spanner. A service using spanner at Google isn't necessarily using gcp. (No clue a…
Surely in a post about Google Cloud Spanner, all examples mentioned use Google Cloud Spanner? It would be moot listing them as examples if they would not: so my assumption is they are all using GCP infra already for Spanner.
I really want to give Google the benefit of the doubt: but it doesn't help that they did not write that eg Gmail is using "Cloud Spanner." They wrote that it uses Spanner.
Re: Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Free Tier is completely irrelevant here, though. The very reason someone might use Spanner is its excellent scalability. I don't believe there is any reason to use it for smaller projects other than education. The customers who will use Spanners are those for whom CockroachDB is not enough, for example. For everybody with databases that are not that huge PostgreSQL will do just fine.
Very true, but most people do not yet no about scale-to-zero pay-for-what-you-use sql server clouds with a free tier like CockroachDB and neon. They think that you must pay $5 a month to run a sql server, which has been the case until very recently, so they go with no sql options to get the free tier. Edit: actualy Spanner looks like another CockroachDB. You use sql to interact with it. In which case I can see many p…
FYI, Spanner came long before CockroachDB. Indeed, the founders of CockroachDB are Xooglers and Spanner was inspiration for the latter.