Removing data transfer fees when moving off Google Cloud • Hacker News Board

Re: Removing data transfer fees when moving off Google Cloud

#41

Post by jeffbee » Thu, Jan 11, 2024, 9:32 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #38

jeffbee wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole concept of blocking is inapplicable to packet-switched networks. The whole time I was there I never heard anyone describe any of their several different types of networks as non-blocking. Indeed, the fact that they are centrally-controlled SDNs, where the control plane can tell any participant to stop talking to any other participant, seems to be logically the opposite of "non-blocking", if that circuit-swi…

Blocking is a common concept in packet switched networks; for example, a packet switch with a full crossover can be called "non-blocking". A switch is either going to queue or discard packets, and at the rates we're discussing, there is not enough buffer space so typically if a switch gets overloaded it's going to drop low priority packets. Obviously many things have changed, there are ethernet pause frames and admis…

The whole word smacks of Bellhead thinking. With ethernet you put a frame on the wire and hope.

Re: Removing data transfer fees when moving off Google Cloud

#42

Post by dspillett » Thu, Jan 11, 2024, 9:32 PM UTC

SteveNuts wrote: post #10

loosescrews wrote: post #4

> Certain legacy providers leverage their on-premises software monopolies to create cloud monopolies, using restrictive licensing practices that lock in customers and warp competition. I like to see them publicly call out Microsoft and Oracle.

I think the "Legacy" and "licensing" portions are specifically calling out MS and Oracle, but they very sneakily are calling AWS out too on the fact that egress makes it insanely expensive to leave their platform. I've worked at some orgs where to either move their data out of S3 would cost $20k, or to even delete it would cost thousands in API calls.

> but they very sneakily are calling AWS out too

That, and any of the smaller “clouds” with egress/delete fees that need to be considered when leaving. Seems massively disingenuous given that until this announcement they also had such fees (“look, those people try rip you just like we were doing until five minutes ago!”) but that is pretty standard for marketing materials.

This makes them a better option as the first cloud provider to try, other things being equal, because leaving (back to on-prem or to another provider) is easier. I assume they are trying to remove a little of the huge the distance between them and the two leading players by reducing concerns that might add on-boarding friction.

Re: Removing data transfer fees when moving off Google Cloud

#43

Post by pwarner » Thu, Jan 11, 2024, 9:35 PM UTC

Egress fees are way too high. And it doesn't keep anyone in cloud, if you want to move out, you do it. In fact, I think the fear of egress costs keeps more people OUT of cloud than it keeps people in. This is a smart move that won't cost them anything and may increase their business.

Re: Removing data transfer fees when moving off Google Cloud

#44

Post by solatic » Thu, Jan 11, 2024, 9:36 PM UTC

SteveNuts wrote: post #10

loosescrews wrote: post #4

> Certain legacy providers leverage their on-premises software monopolies to create cloud monopolies, using restrictive licensing practices that lock in customers and warp competition. I like to see them publicly call out Microsoft and Oracle.

I think the "Legacy" and "licensing" portions are specifically calling out MS and Oracle, but they very sneakily are calling AWS out too on the fact that egress makes it insanely expensive to leave their platform. I've worked at some orgs where to either move their data out of S3 would cost $20k, or to even delete it would cost thousands in API calls.

> to even delete it would cost thousands in API calls

raises eyebrow

It's a well-known trick (proposed by AWS Support as well) to set S3 lifecycle rules to empty buckets with too many objects to cycle through via List calls. Doesn't cost anything.

Re: Removing data transfer fees when moving off Google Cloud

#45

Post by dekhn » Thu, Jan 11, 2024, 9:36 PM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #41

dekhn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking is a common concept in packet switched networks; for example, a packet switch with a full crossover can be called "non-blocking". A switch is either going to queue or discard packets, and at the rates we're discussing, there is not enough buffer space so typically if a switch gets overloaded it's going to drop low priority packets. Obviously many things have changed, there are ethernet pause frames and admis…

The whole word smacks of Bellhead thinking. With ethernet you put a frame on the wire and hope.

That's an exceptional simplification of modern network approaches.

if the world was bellhead, ATM would have won.

Re: Removing data transfer fees when moving off Google Cloud

#46

Post by londons_explore » Thu, Jan 11, 2024, 9:41 PM UTC

pwarner wrote: post #43

Egress fees are way too high. And it doesn't keep anyone in cloud, if you want to move out, you do it. In fact, I think the fear of egress costs keeps more people OUT of cloud than it keeps people in. This is a smart move that won't cost them anything and may increase their business.

I know plenty of companies who can't afford the Aws egress fees to get their data out of Aws, and it's far cheaper to just pay storage for one more month and kick the can down the road.

Re: Removing data transfer fees when moving off Google Cloud

#47

Post by londons_explore » Thu, Jan 11, 2024, 9:46 PM UTC

The process seems a bit cumbersome...

Why not:

1. Migrate your data out.

2. Close your account.

3. You will automatically be refunded all network egress fees incurred in the final 60 days, capped at the number of gigabytes you had stored in our products in the preceding 60 days.

Re: Removing data transfer fees when moving off Google Cloud

#48

Post by TulliusCicero » Thu, Jan 11, 2024, 9:49 PM UTC

blibble wrote: post #18

jdon wrote: post #12

Looks like it's a response to the recent cloud services market investigation by the CMA [1]. Which highlighted "Egress fees harm competition by creating barriers to switching and multi-cloud leading to cloud service providers entrenching their position" [2]. It's also interesting that they are calling out problems with software licensing, as that is another thing the CMA is investigating in their cloud market review.…

I read through a couple of these responses to the CMA by MS, Google and AWS and their smaller competitors as expected the hyperscalers refuse to acknowledge that the free ingress and expensive egress is a lock-in mechanism, and their smaller competitors complain bitterly about this the hyperscalers say they have to charge egress fees to pay for the costs in building their networks, but for some reason doesn't apply t…

"Egress can be no more expensive than ingress" seems like a reasonable rule.

Re: Removing data transfer fees when moving off Google Cloud

#49

Post by SteveNuts » Thu, Jan 11, 2024, 9:57 PM UTC

solatic wrote: post #44

SteveNuts wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the "Legacy" and "licensing" portions are specifically calling out MS and Oracle, but they very sneakily are calling AWS out too on the fact that egress makes it insanely expensive to leave their platform. I've worked at some orgs where to either move their data out of S3 would cost $20k, or to even delete it would cost thousands in API calls.

> to even delete it would cost thousands in API calls raises eyebrow It's a well-known trick (proposed by AWS Support as well) to set S3 lifecycle rules to empty buckets with too many objects to cycle through via List calls. Doesn't cost anything.

There's still a cost for transitions even if it's not list calls. That might be cheaper I haven't looked in a while.

Re: Removing data transfer fees when moving off Google Cloud

#50

Post by mschuster91 » Thu, Jan 11, 2024, 10:09 PM UTC

blibble wrote: post #18

jdon wrote: post #12

Looks like it's a response to the recent cloud services market investigation by the CMA [1]. Which highlighted "Egress fees harm competition by creating barriers to switching and multi-cloud leading to cloud service providers entrenching their position" [2]. It's also interesting that they are calling out problems with software licensing, as that is another thing the CMA is investigating in their cloud market review.…

I read through a couple of these responses to the CMA by MS, Google and AWS and their smaller competitors as expected the hyperscalers refuse to acknowledge that the free ingress and expensive egress is a lock-in mechanism, and their smaller competitors complain bitterly about this the hyperscalers say they have to charge egress fees to pay for the costs in building their networks, but for some reason doesn't apply t…

> the hyperscalers say they have to charge egress fees to pay for the costs in building their networks, but for some reason doesn't apply to ingress (which they're silent on)

because ingress traffic volume is a fraction (in my experience, in website hosting of a well known household brand, barely 1%!) of egress traffic volume, and most peering connections are 1:1 in ingress/egress bandwidth so the egress bandwidth cost sets the price.