Live data from Hacker News

AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

freeman.vc

61–70 of 245 posts

Re: AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

#61
post #50
post #23

Heard from a Googler that the internal infrastructure (Borg) is simply not optimized for quick startup. Launching a new Borg job often takes multiple minutes before the job runs. Not surprising at all.

booting VMs != starting a borg job.

The technology may be different but the culture carries over. People simply don't have the habit to optimize for startup time.

Re: AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

#62
post #26
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does migrating a vm to another physical machine work?

VMware has been doing this for years, it's called vmotion and there is a lot of documentation about it if you are interested (eg https://www.thegeekpub.com/8407/how-vmotion-works/ ) Essential, memory state is copied to the new host, the VM is stunned for a millisecond and the cpu states is copied and resumed on the new host (you may see a dropped ping). All the networking and storage is virtual anyway so that is "mov…

Up to 500ms per your source, depending on how much churn there is in the memory from the source system.

Very cool.

Re: AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming this blurb is accurate: " General-purpose SSD volume (gp3) provides the consistent 125 MiB/s throughput and 3000 IOPS within the price of provisioned storage. Additional IOPS (up to 16,000) and throughput (1000 MiB/s) can be provisioned with an additional price. The General-purpose SSD volume (gp2) provides 3 IOPS per GiB storage provisioned with a minimum of 100 IOPS" ... then it seems like a device that li…

This would have been my guess. All EBS volumes are stored on a physical disk that supports the highest bandwidth and IOPS you can live migrate to, and the actual rates you get are determined by something in the interconnect. Live migration is thus a matter of swapping out the interconnect between the VM and the disk or even just relaxing a logical rate-limiter, without having to migrate your data to a different disk.

The actual migration is not instantaneous despite the volume being immediately reported as gp3. You get a status change to "optimizing" if my memory is correct with a percentage. And the higher the volume the longer it takes so there is definitely a sync to faster storage.

Re: AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They pause your VM, copy everything about its state over to the new machine, and quickly start the other instance. It's pretty clever. I think there are tricks you can play with machines that have large memory footprints to copy most of it before the pause, and only copy what has changed since then during the pause. The disks are all on the network, so no need to move anything there.

In reality it sync the memory first to the other host and only pause the vm when the last state sync is small enough to be so quick the pause is barely measurable.

Indian jones and the register states

Re: AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

#66
post #26
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does migrating a vm to another physical machine work?

VMware has been doing this for years, it's called vmotion and there is a lot of documentation about it if you are interested (eg https://www.thegeekpub.com/8407/how-vmotion-works/ ) Essential, memory state is copied to the new host, the VM is stunned for a millisecond and the cpu states is copied and resumed on the new host (you may see a dropped ping). All the networking and storage is virtual anyway so that is "mov…

No post body was provided.

Re: AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

#67
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dunno about AWS, but GCP uses live migration, and will migrate your VM across physical machines as necessary. The disk volumes are all connected over the network, nothing really depends on the actual physical machine your VM is ran on.

Azure, AWS and GCP all have live migration. VMWare has it too.

Ec2 does not have live migration. On azure it’s spotty so not every maintenance can offer it.

Re: AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

#68
post #51
post #23

Heard from a Googler that the internal infrastructure (Borg) is simply not optimized for quick startup. Launching a new Borg job often takes multiple minutes before the job runs. Not surprising at all.

Borg is not used for gcp vms, though.

It is used but borg scheduler does not manage vm startups

Re: AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

#69
post #26
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does migrating a vm to another physical machine work?

VMware has been doing this for years, it's called vmotion and there is a lot of documentation about it if you are interested (eg https://www.thegeekpub.com/8407/how-vmotion-works/ ) Essential, memory state is copied to the new host, the VM is stunned for a millisecond and the cpu states is copied and resumed on the new host (you may see a dropped ping). All the networking and storage is virtual anyway so that is "mov…

That is really interesting I didn't realize it was so fast. Thanks for the post I will give it a read!

Re: AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different

#70
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does migrating a vm to another physical machine work?

This blog post is pretty old (2015) but gives a good introduction. https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2015/03/Google-Compute-...

Thanks for sharing, I will give it a read!
Post reply on HN