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

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#81

Post by cthalupa » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 5:39 AM UTC

derefr wrote: post #53

peferron wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I wish AWS would release a new generation of "i" instances, with the same large amount of local storage as i3 I figure they can't. [Economically, I mean.] I always figured the "local per-instance storage" on most instance-types was actually not literally local, but rather a set of disks allocated from a per-rack iSCSI disk server. (The host "wastage" if this wasn't true would be quite large.) The "i" instance-type…

This would clash with the AWS documentation and re:invent discussions:

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/Instance... >This storage is located on disks that are physically attached to the host computer.

https://youtu.be/eWFEJmsddV0?t=1400

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#82

Post by wmf » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 5:52 AM UTC

derefr wrote: post #46

> What about network throughput variance? On AWS, the variance is only 0.006 GB/sec. This means that the GCP network throughput is 81x more variable when compared to AWS. What would cause this particular effect? It's very interesting. Is it, perhaps, that with GCP you're hitting the capacity of the network, while with AWS you're being artificially capped at that speed on a network that could theoretically go faster?…

GCP Andromeda is software-based network virtualization which tends to have lower performance and higher performance variability. https://www.usenix.org/node/211244

AWS Nitro/ENA is hardware network virtualization which is faster and more consistent.

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#83

Post by peferron » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 5:54 AM UTC

derefr wrote: post #53

peferron wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I wish AWS would release a new generation of "i" instances, with the same large amount of local storage as i3 I figure they can't. [Economically, I mean.] I always figured the "local per-instance storage" on most instance-types was actually not literally local, but rather a set of disks allocated from a per-rack iSCSI disk server. (The host "wastage" if this wasn't true would be quite large.) The "i" instance-type…

But c5d, m5d, r5d and other instance types use Nitro and have "local NVMe-based SSD storage" just like i3. Doesn't that contradict your entire point?

If you picked a r5d, and either gave it a larger piece of the local SSD pie or replaced the local SSDs with larger capacity ones, you would essentially get the i4 that I've been calling for. I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but I would be surprised if technical roadblocks were the main reason why this hasn't happened yet, rather than e.g. lack of customer demand.

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#84

Post by markonen » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 6:17 AM UTC

derefr wrote: post #53

peferron wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I wish AWS would release a new generation of "i" instances, with the same large amount of local storage as i3 I figure they can't. [Economically, I mean.] I always figured the "local per-instance storage" on most instance-types was actually not literally local, but rather a set of disks allocated from a per-rack iSCSI disk server. (The host "wastage" if this wasn't true would be quite large.) The "i" instance-type…

AWS has already built that—on Nitro based systems, even EBS volumes are NVMe attached.

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#85

Post by yovagoyu » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 6:23 AM UTC

hueving wrote: post #80

yovagoyu wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, because who cares about performance when you have a pretty UX?

You're confusing UX with UI. You can have an excellent UX that's still just a CLI.

Google uses "gsutil" and "gcloud" whereas AWS just uses "aws". Both are clear but because Google arbitrarily has 2 tools I constantly have to remember which one had which feature.

It's not a big thing but little stuff like makes it more cumbersome to use.

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#86

Post by yovagoyu » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 6:26 AM UTC

dna_polymerase wrote: post #51

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.

If you have no experience with cloud providers and are set on one of the two: Google. UI/UX and documentation are so much better. Also I can't really agree with the articles findings, maybe my personal benchmarks are too specific to my workload.

I've also had a way better experience with AWS's docs and UX.

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#87

Post by snuxoll » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 6:32 AM UTC

social_quotient wrote: post #31

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 clien…

On the note of account management, you cannot be a Google Cloud Partner without GSuite or Google Cloud Identity accounts, period, end of story. This whole setup is just ludicrous, I have to pay Google money just to have a partner login? Even Microsoft offers a "good enough" tier of Azure AD that can be used to sign up for their partner portal, and AWS just uses normal Amazon accounts.

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#88

Post by Havoc » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 7:46 AM UTC

yovagoyu wrote: post #72

nodesocket wrote: post #19

Developer experience on GCP is vastly superior to AWS. - Pricing on GCP is much easier, no need to purchase reserved instances, figure out all the details and buried AWS billing rules. Run your GCP instances and automatically get discounts. AWS reserved instances requires knowing your instance types, knowing that you can purchase the smallest type of an instance class and combine, knowing that you can only purchase 2…

I'd argue that developer experience on AWS is better. I work on both. Two things stand out for me: Serverless lambdas on AWS are more functional. Google does not have comparable functionality yet. Auth and IAM permissions are far more configurable on AWS. Google's ACL does not have the same depth of tools there. Making the ACL do the same thing as AWS's IAM generally feels cludgy and a pain. Working with AWS there is…

What feature do lambdas have that cloud functions don't? (asking not challenging)

Never used lambdas but the fact that gcloud functions allow python imports make them pretty versatile from what I can tell

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#89

Post by iamgopal » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 8:01 AM UTC

So, in conclusion, When Using cockroachdb, with using 32gb ram instead of 60gb ram, and with different throughtput setting, you may consider AWS as it provides slight better cost because of using lower resources. And since there are no other big player in the market, we will test only two of them, and our only choice will be AWS.

Re: AWS Outperforms GCP in the 2018 Cloud Report

#90

Post by null000 » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 8:41 AM UTC

Honestly I would have expected performance on a cloud provider to be measured in x per $. You're pretty much renting everything, the hardware etc is really difficult to compare, and you can usually throw more machines at the problem anyway, so measuring a single machine vs a single machine doesn't make much sense if the two might cost vastly different amounts.