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

Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

arador.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 233 posts

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#191

Post by late2part »

Mahh wrote: post #108
mankash666 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good case study is Dropbox. They didn't build any of their own infrastructure until they became big enough (2 years ago).

The fact here isn't quite right. (I'm an employee at Dropbox) Primarily, until 2 years ago we did lean on S3 for all block storage, but most of the rest of the infrastructure (metadata storage, etc) ran in our own datacenters. Your point I think you're getting at sounds like something I'd agree with though -- you can wait a bit the cost efficiency starts to be what is important/impactful to work on before shifting yo…

I heard a story once that Dropbox started to move their data out of S3 and AWS rate limited them so they couldn't.

I don't know if it's true or not but I heard the story.

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#192

Post by Clubber »

samstave wrote: post #113
mbesto wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before all these cloud providers websites were not noticeably less reliable than they are now. Before all of these providers existed: 1) The volume of internet traffic that exists today didn't exist then. Mobile devices didn't exist. Mobile devices that aren't always connected to the internet and consume hours of our day didn't exist. Large downloads (1GB) didn't exist. They couldn't exist because the infrastructur…

Yeah, well my BBS runs just fine over 2400 baud and 640kb ram. Ill see your ass in the Pit.

Call waiting will take you down every time! :)

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#193

Post by late2part »

_jal wrote: post #103
MBCook wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#3 is why we went to Amazon, and its one of the reasons we were successful. Sad as that was. No weeks/months of delays/hassles/fights/sabotage. Just success as fast as we could do our part and figure out the few small hurdles.

...That sounds more like an HR problem than a technical problem. There are network engineers in the world who don't live in caves and gnaw at the bones of administrative assistants.

Please send me their resumes..

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#194

Post by late2part »

dfinninger wrote: post #57
orik wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hopefully with your spare 3437 dollars a month you could figure out how to ever maintain such a thing.

... per server. It really, really depends on on your use case, but there are some scenarios where bare metal just makes more sense. Also there are ones where cloud makes everything much easier. North America-oriented B2B app that's a JavaScript SPA witch connects to some lightweight services fronting a database? I think that's a great contender for the cloud. 500-node Hadoop cluster running 24/7 with heavy load? You…

Correct!!!

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#195

Post by late2part »

jfoutz wrote: post #119
dfinninger wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't make much sense for one server... but if you have 5, then you are looking at $200k. Then as you go up the numbers start making more sense.

Totally, the thing that's super cool about the amazon instances you don't have to do anything with users, authentication, authorization, networking, dns, backups, monitoring, logging, firewall rules, security patches and upgrades. With a bare metal server you have to manage all of that.

Oh my goodness man, have you managed Amazon instances? Setting up VPCs, IGW, IAM, DNS, EBS Snapshots (and deletions until recent lifecycle), custom metric in coudwatch, and Security Groups is a seriously challenging task just to learn the basics, much less do it right, much less automate it.

It's not a bed of roses in the physical world either, but you're simply wrong to say it's easy in the "Cloud" and hard in a DC/Bare Metal.

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#196

Post by late2part »

qaq wrote: post #97
Klathmon wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you are just trading one fee for another, but the "sysadmin services" you are ordering most likely has slower response time, less resources, less knowledge, and worse uptime guarantees than someone like aws. Yeah, at the larger sizes it might make sense, but not for everyone.

Nope you have a number for the person that provides the service and you can call her/him. Unless you are at several million per month spend at AWS have fun getting a hold of someone when sh#t hits the fan.

Good luck hiring someone on a demand hourly basis that knows your stuff and won't break your stuff.

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#197

Post by late2part »

Johnny555 wrote: post #44
shiftpgdn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had selected a dedicated instance. It's been my experience the difference in performance between dedicated and non dedicated is dramatic. edit: I had selected a dedicated instance in order to compare apples to apples. By definition you don't share a colo server.

With an m4.16xl, there's no effective difference between a dedicated or default tenancy instance - only one .16xl can run on a physical hypervisor, which is reflected in the pricing, it's $3.20/hour whether it's dedicated or not: https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/on-demand/ https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/purchasing-options/dedicated-inst... For smaller instances, there is around a 10% increase for dedicated, for example…

An m4.16xl has 8 physical cores; what hypervisor does AWS buy that only has 8 physical cores?

My smallest physical servers have 8 physical cores.

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#198

Post by late2part »

Spooky23 wrote: post #150
shiftpgdn wrote: post #7

I have posted a few times about how absurdly expensive all the cloud providers are. If you have a baseline load you should be co-locating bare metal. Any excess capacity you need should spill over into your AWS/GCE/Azure account. For example: A dedicated m4.16xLarge EC2 instance in AWS is $3987/month. You could build that same server for $15,000 through Dell, lease it at $400/month (OpEx), and colo it with a 1GB/s bl…

I just landed a few racks of bladecenters and storage. High 7 figure deal. This was probably the best implementation project ever... everything ran on time, the vendor delivered everything on time, facilities was 100% ready and pre-cabled, etc. I'm incredibly proud of our team -- our biggest issue was someone ordered the wrong SFP. Butter. Timeline: 120 days procurement (including product evaluation and PoC), 30 days…

Which hardware vendor did you go with?

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#199

Post by rdtsc »

MBCook wrote: post #187
rdtsc wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is sabotage something you are worried about in general. Just seems like there might be deeper and serious issues if that is a primary​ concern.

It was sabotage in the 'oops this project isn't working' or 'oops this really import thing came up, no time' or 'didn't I do that?' sense. Having some plausible deniability. Work slowdown/stoppage stuff. Not actively breaking things (mostly). And it was all directed at maintaining control/power. Worst person I've ever worked with. When I tell stories at future jobs I fully expect people to not believe me. Hell, peopl…

Oh I believe you. I've heard of it before. Was trying to say that if that's an issue, it should be an HR fix more than an infrastructure fix. But I also imagine often that person also convinced management the are an "11x rockstar programmer"...

Re: Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing

#200

Post by deafcalculus »

I suspect the high bandwidth price is a targeting tool and is primarily for repelling those wanting to host seed boxes, porn sites and the like. You can probably get a much better deal if you're paying > 10k$/mo.

Even then, cloud bandwidth is insanely expensive. For example, Hetzner offers 1.3$/TB (if you happen to exceed their generous 30 TB quota). In comparison, Amazon is 70x more expensive at 90$/TB.

Post reply on HN