AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report • Hacker News Board

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#31

Post by social_quotient » Thu, Dec 13, 2018, 11:35 PM UTC

kharms wrote: post #18

For someone who has worked with both: which offers a better developer onboarding experience, for small web/data apps? Ease of learning and use wise.

I prefer aws to google and msft for account mgmt purposes. google and msft are so dead set on binding your logins to your global accounts which might be used for other things.

I know someone might argue that aws and amazon.com are sharing the same account, I guess they "can" but its easy to make a new aws account with just an email - I think we manage about 12-15 different aws accounts. We tend to isolate major clients or projects by making entirely new accounts. I don't feel like I'm working uphill to keep multiple aws accounts from merging or somehow binding to my personal shopping account for amazon.com. With msft and google it feels like I am always almost "tricked" in to binding multiple accounts and login states together.

I would argue that once you have an account up and running most of these guys are similar with differences. The ui on aws isn't glamorous but I find its utilitarian simplicity pretty easy to deal with and get most things done.

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#32

Post by peferron » Thu, Dec 13, 2018, 11:38 PM UTC

adrr wrote: post #25

brian_cunnie wrote: post #13

I've also benchmarked GCP vs. AWS [0], and, for the tests that I ran, found that GCP outperformed AWS by a factor of 3:1. Specifically, a GCP instance n1-highcpu-8 with a 256GB pd-ssd disk, clocked in at 11,728 IOPS vs an AWS c4.xlarge with a 256GB gp2 disk, clocking in at 3,634 IOPS. To put that in context of the blog post, it means your setup can drastically affect your results. Using local NVMe disk, for example,…

If you need raw speed for storage why mess around with EBS or any other network storage device. Your case with videos. You could shove the videos for permanent storage on S3 and then use I2 instance and it's ephemeral storage to serve videos. I think I2 NVME drives push 250,000 IOPS per drive and you can get up to 8 drives per instance.

If you expect your read/writes to be mostly sequential, and about throughput more than about IOPS, then local HDDs (d2 or h1) may even do the job for a lower $/GB. (You may even be able to serve straight from S3 or CloudFront but that's veering off the topic.)

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#33

Post by peferron » Thu, Dec 13, 2018, 11:41 PM UTC

sethvargo wrote: post #29

Hey all - Seth from Google here. Thank you to the authors who worked on this report. These types of reports help us better understand the ways in which our customers and partners utilize our platform. Our team is reviewing the report and will provide a response as we conduct our own benchmarks. Varying factors impact these types of benchmark analyses, many of which are difficult to isolate and control. As an example,…

Where do you intend to publish your response? GCP blog [1]? I'd like to make sure I won't miss it, and this HN thread may be buried by the time you come up with a response.

[1] https://cloud.google.com/blog/

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#34

Post by socceroos » Thu, Dec 13, 2018, 11:44 PM UTC

sethvargo wrote: post #29

Hey all - Seth from Google here. Thank you to the authors who worked on this report. These types of reports help us better understand the ways in which our customers and partners utilize our platform. Our team is reviewing the report and will provide a response as we conduct our own benchmarks. Varying factors impact these types of benchmark analyses, many of which are difficult to isolate and control. As an example,…

Where will we find the responses?

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#35

Post by ta_271828 » Thu, Dec 13, 2018, 11:44 PM UTC

This is interesting given that I heard on the grapevine that some major cloud players are actually using AWS on the back-end even though they are advertising say as.. "GCP".. wonder if anyone can confirm or deny...

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#36

Post by malisper » Thu, Dec 13, 2018, 11:48 PM UTC

peferron wrote: post #27

virtuallynathan wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would compare against the C5 instance type; it uses the newer "Nitro" hypervisor.

Just looking at the report's second graph, c5d.4xlarge has twice the throughput of i3.4xlarge, which is incredible. I wish AWS would release a new generation of "i" instances, with the same large amount of local storage as i3, but built on the same platform (including Nitro and processor choices) as c5/m5.

To be fair, an i3.4xl has 10x the disk and 4x the memory as a c5d.4xl at 1.5x the cost. If you are optimizing for GB/cost, i3s are still a reasonable choice.

There's also the i3.metal which has no hypervisor. I'm curious how the performance of one of those compares to a traditional i3.

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#37

Post by socceroos » Thu, Dec 13, 2018, 11:49 PM UTC

kharms wrote: post #18

For someone who has worked with both: which offers a better developer onboarding experience, for small web/data apps? Ease of learning and use wise.

Honestly, for that kind of workload I'd adjust my sights to Digital Ocean or Firebase.

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#38

Post by WestCoastJustin » Thu, Dec 13, 2018, 11:50 PM UTC

ta_271828 wrote: post #35

This is interesting given that I heard on the grapevine that some major cloud players are actually using AWS on the back-end even though they are advertising say as.. "GCP".. wonder if anyone can confirm or deny...

By nature large companies have massive global teams and there is no single provider for anything. Team A could using AWS, while team B cloud be using GCP, and team C is using Azure. Just because team B says they are using GCP doesn't mean the others are lying. Or, that there is anything weird going on.

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#39

Post by halbritt » Thu, Dec 13, 2018, 11:57 PM UTC

jsnell wrote: post #24

halbritt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the throughput numbers given. 5.6GB/s for GCP and 9.6GB/s for AWS would be 44gbps and 76gbps respectively. I don't don't know of any instances offering that kind of throughput. I've personally validated GCP's statement that they offer 2gbps/core up to 16gbps. I can get 16gbps consistently between any two n1-standard-8 using iperf. This generally makes network IO in GCP much cheaper.

I wouldn't read too much into it, it's clearly Gbps. The authors are just sloppy with capitalization. They also elsewhere talk about iperf having "128 kb" buffer which seems unlikely, and the throughput graph says "gb" where the text says "GB". And then there's "iPerf" and "PING"...

If it were gbps then that's certainly weird. I consistently get way better network performance in GCP than in AWS.

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#40

Post by dekhn » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 12:10 AM UTC

sethvargo wrote: post #29

Hey all - Seth from Google here. Thank you to the authors who worked on this report. These types of reports help us better understand the ways in which our customers and partners utilize our platform. Our team is reviewing the report and will provide a response as we conduct our own benchmarks. Varying factors impact these types of benchmark analyses, many of which are difficult to isolate and control. As an example,…

To me, the most interesting part is the large variance in networking performance on GCP while AWS networking is solid (and in line roughly with what you'd see on a good 10gbit network). Variance in networking performance is far worse than a low mean, but in this case not only is the GCP mean much lower, as well as the variance higher.