"Organizations of all sizes and across all industries are increasingly looking to accelerate digital transformation and power AI-driven innovation." How did Google become like this?
By hiring VMWare, Dell and Oracle people
Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
191–200 of 371 posts
Re: Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
#192“ 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…
From the AWS blog post they referenced- > DynamoDB powers multiple high-traffic Amazon properties and systems including Alexa, the Amazon.com sites, and all Amazon fulfillment centers. Over the course of Prime Day, these sources made trillions of calls to the DynamoDB API. DynamoDB maintained high availability while delivering single-digit millisecond responses and peaking at 126 million requests per second. Amazon w…
Just as a hand in the air...Be careful about what you're comparing here. # of API calls over a period of time is...largely irrelevant in the face of QPS. I can happily write a DDOS script that massively bombards a service, but if that halts my QPS then it doesn't matter. So sure, trillions of API calls were made (still impressive in the scope of the overall network of services, I'm not downplaying that), but ultimately, for DynamoDB and Spanner, it's the QPS that mattered to us in terms of comparisons of DB scaling and performance.
Re: Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
#193Earlier 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.
Lambda is the most expensive thing you can do if you have more than 25% utilization. Fargate is extremely close to modern on-demand EC2 pricing (m7a family).
Re: Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
#194Google also has a history of massively spiking the cost of its services. Vendor lockin is a dangerous thing.
Source?
Re: Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
#195Just moved our infra from GCP to AWS. Kubernetes clusters, LB, storage, lambdas, KMS and all of it. Google runs their tech stack as if it's a startup that builds their CV. Everything is immature, tons of hacks, undocumented features. If you are on their k8s there are tons of upcoming new versions and features that force you to revisit key hacks you put in your infra because of their misgivings. Our infra team keeps t…
> AWS support is so nice, you can't believe it.
This! They even custom-coded their support portal better than those off-the-shelf vendor like Zendesk. I say this as a Zendesk paying customer.
GCP on the other hand, is a F-tier in support. Almost feel like I need to beg them to get any level of help.
Re: Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, You can compare Cloud SQL vs Cloud Spanner and RDS vs Dynamo, but it makes more sense to just say "Postgres" and assume that the reader can figure out that it means "Whatever managed postgres service you want to use". The entire point is that every cloud provider has a managed postgres offering, and there's no vendor lock-in. Though, technically, Dynamo does have a docker image you could run in other cloud prov…
I don't think it's really relevant to compare plain Postgres to Spanner, most folks have no need for something like this. It is made for folks who need to do millions of ACID type transactions a second/minute from all over the globe, and have a globally consistent database at all times. There's a reason why Google installed and built their own atomic clocks and put them in their datacenters, it is to facilitate globa…
> It is made for folks who need to do millions of ACID type transactions a second/minute from all over the globe, and have a globally consistent database at all times.
I think just doing some (not necessary millions) ACID transactions over the globe and have consistent DB is strong value proposition even for small users.
Re: Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
Postgres; the schema is still structured. But even if you want something less rigid, Postgres has a jsonb type and great operators for querying json.
You can also create arbitrary indices on derived functions of your JSONB data, which I think is something that a lot of people don't realize. Postgres is a really, really good NoSQL database.
Can you expand on this? Documentation or an example so I can learn?
Re: Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
/shill The AWS SAM CLI smooths over a lot of Lambda's rough points. /unshill
Gasp, a shill?? I totally believe you, I just can't see how it becomes easier than chucking a container on Fargate or something. Maybe I've just been scarred by lambda rat's nests in the past.
The serverless framework makes lambda for side projects a breeze.
CDK for everything else.
Re: Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
#199“ 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…
Infra and Cloud Spanner are the same stack. Having those services run on infra is more about the legacy of tooling to shift it rather than anything around performance or ability to handle it.
Re: Google Cloud Spanner is now half the cost of Amazon DynamoDB
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Infra and Cloud Spanner are the same stack. Having those services run on infra is more about the legacy of tooling to shift it rather than anything around performance or ability to handle it