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

Google Kubernetes Engine's third consecutive day of service disruption

status.cloud.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–419 of 419 posts

Re: Google Kubernetes Engine's third consecutive day of service disruption

#411

Post by geggam »

scarface74 wrote: post #373
geggam wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to the cloud thinking you are going to save money is silly. It is more expensive to run things in the cloud, what you are paying for is the ability to scale up and down without a logistics problem.

It’s only silly if you’re not changing your processes. If you’re keeping the same people doing everything manually instead of automating, or honestly if you’re keeping the same headcount and if you’re not developing and depending on services provided by your provider and instead you’re self hosting services on VMs, of course you’re going to spend more. But I blame most of the cost overruns when using cloud providers…

If your company culture isnt devops no consultant will fix that.

Thinking that is the reason for consultants is a problem

Note : I worked directly for companies as an employee when building these stacks

Re: Google Kubernetes Engine's third consecutive day of service disruption

#412

Post by scarface74 »

geggam wrote: post #410
scarejunba wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I see. You intend to use purely EC2 or GCE instances and just run everything one would run in a colo on them. All right. That's a pretty manpower intensive way of operating. I think the fact that you get cloud agnostic this way is probably not worth it.

The requirement was to be cloud agnostic. This is one of the few ways possible.

In that case, why be in the cloud at all? I still think it would be cheaper to have a colo in two geographically dispersed areas on bare metal.

Re: Google Kubernetes Engine's third consecutive day of service disruption

#413

Post by dpark »

chmod775 wrote: post #301
dpark wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 200/month is an issue, then you aren’t an “early stage startup”. You’re running a hobby project.

You know there's 1-man "start ups"/companies out there that serve more users than 99.5% of VC startups ever will, which earn their owner a very livable wage, but who still can't afford a 500 bucks business support plan on all of the 20 services they use. If you've got VC money to blow so you can pretend your SaaS toy can feed 500 people while having money left to throw at things, that's cool. Just remember that other…

> You know there's 1-man "start ups"...can't afford a 500 bucks business support plan on all of the 20 services they use.

And just like that you turned a $200/month bill into a $10k/month strawman.

> Just remember that other people might be running sustainable businesses.

Why are you pretending that a startup that can't afford $200/month is a "sustainable businesses"?

Re: Google Kubernetes Engine's third consecutive day of service disruption

#414

Post by dpark »

vira28 wrote: post #300
dpark wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 200/month is an issue, then you aren’t an “early stage startup”. You’re running a hobby project.

Okay. Lets say its an hobby project, but do you understand those today's hobby projects are tomorrow's mature startup?

No, I understand that most hobby projects are just hobbies and Google/Amazon/etc are under no obligation to provide support for hobbies that are literally a net cost to them.

I'm glad AWS's free tier is working for you, but complaining that Google doesn't want to give you free capacity for your business and then also provide you free support for that business is pretty absurd.

Re: Google Kubernetes Engine's third consecutive day of service disruption

#415

Post by electrum »

illumin8 wrote: post #378
jkaplowitz wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each platform has features the other platform doesn't, even though AWS has more. Some of GCP's unique compelling features include live VM migration that makes it less relevant when a host has to reboot, the new life that has recently been put into Google App Engine (both flexible environment and the second generation standard environment runtimes), the global load balancer with a single IP and no pre-warming, and Clo…

Redshift is not a direct competitor with BigQuery. It's a relational data warehouse. BigQuery more directly competes with Athena, which is a managed version of Apache Presto, and my personal opinion is that Athena is way better than BigQuery because I can query data that is in S3 (object storage) without having to import it into BigQuery first. Disk and network performance is extremely consistent with AWS so long as…

Presto is not an Apache project (although it is open source under the Apache License).

Re: Google Kubernetes Engine's third consecutive day of service disruption

#416

Post by chmod775 »

dpark wrote: post #413
chmod775 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know there's 1-man "start ups"/companies out there that serve more users than 99.5% of VC startups ever will, which earn their owner a very livable wage, but who still can't afford a 500 bucks business support plan on all of the 20 services they use. If you've got VC money to blow so you can pretend your SaaS toy can feed 500 people while having money left to throw at things, that's cool. Just remember that other…

> You know there's 1-man "start ups"...can't afford a 500 bucks business support plan on all of the 20 services they use. And just like that you turned a $200/month bill into a $10k/month strawman. > Just remember that other people might be running sustainable businesses. Why are you pretending that a startup that can't afford $200/month is a "sustainable businesses"?

There are literally millions of small 1-2 people business that make less than 10k in profits.

I mean sure, they could go and probably afford to waste $200 extra on something random that will be useless to them most of the time, but that money is going straight out of their paycheck.

You don't remain profitable though by repeatedly making bad decisions like that. Which was my point.

Running a (small) profitable business is about making the right decisions consistently, and if you're likely to waste money on one thing, you're also likely to waste it on the 19 other similar things.

Maybe speak to literally anyone you know who is running a small businesses if you want to know more. Yes that includes your local small stores on your street.

At the end of the day you probably pissed off quite a few people on here when you called their livelihood a hobby project.

Re: Google Kubernetes Engine's third consecutive day of service disruption

#417

Post by dpark »

chmod775 wrote: post #416
dpark wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You know there's 1-man "start ups"...can't afford a 500 bucks business support plan on all of the 20 services they use. And just like that you turned a $200/month bill into a $10k/month strawman. > Just remember that other people might be running sustainable businesses. Why are you pretending that a startup that can't afford $200/month is a "sustainable businesses"?

There are literally millions of small 1-2 people business that make less than 10k in profits. I mean sure, they could go and probably afford to waste $200 extra on something random that will be useless to them most of the time, but that money is going straight out of their paycheck. You don't remain profitable though by repeatedly making bad decisions like that. Which was my point. Running a (small) profitable busine…

The scenario being discussed was building a company on top of GCP and being unable to afford $200/month for support costs. Tell me what “mom and pop” shops are pulling in $10k/month from GCP-based software but are unwilling/unable to pay $200/month for the very thing that underpins their livelihoods?

This is akin to saying that a mom and pop laundromat can’t afford insurance, or shouldn’t because they won’t frequently need it.

You’re trying to equate small businesses with hobbies. You’ve now resorted to straw men, slippery slopes, and false equivalency. Maybe consider that if you have to distort the situation this much to make your point, you might just be wrong.

> At the end of the day you probably pissed off quite a few people on here when you called their livelihood a hobby project.

I didn’t say anything about anyone’s livelihood. You’re the one pretending that small businesses bringing home $120k/year can’t afford a $200 monthly support bill.

I bet the guy who started this thread about GCP’s support cost has made a sum total of I don’t care if “quite a few people” got pissed about my comment. People with egos that delicate shouldn’t use social media.

Re: Google Kubernetes Engine's third consecutive day of service disruption

#418

Post by chmod775 »

dpark wrote: post #417
chmod775 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are literally millions of small 1-2 people business that make less than 10k in profits. I mean sure, they could go and probably afford to waste $200 extra on something random that will be useless to them most of the time, but that money is going straight out of their paycheck. You don't remain profitable though by repeatedly making bad decisions like that. Which was my point. Running a (small) profitable busine…

The scenario being discussed was building a company on top of GCP and being unable to afford $200/month for support costs. Tell me what “mom and pop” shops are pulling in $10k/month from GCP-based software but are unwilling/unable to pay $200/month for the very thing that underpins their livelihoods? This is akin to saying that a mom and pop laundromat can’t afford insurance, or shouldn’t because they won’t frequentl…

> The scenario being discussed was building a company on top of GCP and being unable to afford $200/month for support costs. Tell me what “mom and pop” shops are pulling in $10k/month from GCP-based software but are unwilling/unable to pay $200/month for the very thing that underpins their livelihoods?

I was trying to tell you that most small businesses can't go around spending hundreds of bucks of things that provide little value, whether that's a business support plans on services they use or something else. It's true regardless of whether you're a brick and mortar store or some online service.

> This is akin to saying that a mom and pop laundromat can’t afford insurance, or shouldn’t because they won’t frequently need it.

Speaking about about false equivalencies...

> You’re the one pretending that small businesses bringing home $120k/year can’t afford a $200 monthly support bill.

First off, I spoke of businesses making generally less than that.

Also (I already said this, good job ignoring that!) paying $200 bucks on a single useless thing is survivable for even a small business - but you know what's better than only making one bad business decision? Making no bad ones at all. Making too many will quickly break the camel's back.

Which was my whole argument and it's also what people generally refer to when they say they can't afford something.

For instance you may say "I can't afford to go to this restaurant", even though you'd have enough money to do it without going immediately bankrupt. But it'd be a bad decision, too many of which quickly add up.

Re: Google Kubernetes Engine's third consecutive day of service disruption

#419

Post by dpark »

chmod775 wrote: post #418
dpark wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scenario being discussed was building a company on top of GCP and being unable to afford $200/month for support costs. Tell me what “mom and pop” shops are pulling in $10k/month from GCP-based software but are unwilling/unable to pay $200/month for the very thing that underpins their livelihoods? This is akin to saying that a mom and pop laundromat can’t afford insurance, or shouldn’t because they won’t frequentl…

> The scenario being discussed was building a company on top of GCP and being unable to afford $200/month for support costs. Tell me what “mom and pop” shops are pulling in $10k/month from GCP-based software but are unwilling/unable to pay $200/month for the very thing that underpins their livelihoods? I was trying to tell you that most small businesses can't go around spending hundreds of bucks of things that provid…

> I was trying to tell you that most small businesses can't go around spending hundreds of bucks of things that provide little value

And I'm telling you that if you built your business on top of GCP, a support contract is probably not "low value". You'd happily pay $200 for support on your critical infrastructure, just as you'd happily pay $200 for a repairman to fix your washing machine if you owned a laundromat.

If you don't need support, then sure, don't pay for the plan. If you do need support, $200 seems pretty reasonable.

> Speaking about about false equivalencies...

Signing up for a monthly recurring support plan in case you need it is literally insuring your business.

> For instance you may say "I can't afford to go to this restaurant", even though you'd have enough money to do it without going immediately bankrupt. But it'd be a bad decision, too many of which quickly add up.

A support plan for your critical infrastructure probably isn't "useless". Which is the point. If your need for support is that low, then either you've built your own redundant systems to protect you or more likely you aren't running a real business.

Post reply on HN