81–90 of 318 posts
Offt, not a good look for Railway, Render or Vercel!
I’m a fan of all three, but my mindset is that I’m not just paying for raw infrastructure, I’m paying for the engineering work I don’t have to do when I use them.
Oracle Cloud only charges a fraction of want Google, Microsoft, and Amazon charge. Any idea how Oracle is able to keep the cost so low? Or are the others just inflating the price so customers don’t move to the competitor? In that case Oracle deserves a shout out for not applying these vendor lock-in practices.
Oracle has probably really good margins on egress costs. With AWS/GCP/Azure the costs are absurd because for a lot of their customers it's not a big cost during operation, but makes moving data off cost prohibitive. It's simply a vendor lock-in mechanism for them.
The article says “ Cloud providers charge for egress because it costs them money to send data out of their network. They have to pay for the infrastructure and bandwidth required to send data to users”. The charge is not based on cost in the case of the big names. They charge an arm and a leg because they want to keep you and your data on their platform. When you move it you are breaking free. Hence the high costs to…
The cost of egress traffic is a very good reason for many organizations to not fully migrate to a cloud provider anytime soon. And since, unlike with storage costs, there doesn't seem to be an actual reason (other than: it makes migrating to competitors cost-prohibitive in a subset of cases), that seems kind of... weird? Small example: an actual company I do some work for is in the business of delivering creative ass…
> other than: it makes migrating to competitors cost-prohibitive in a subset of cases My theory: it forces third party services into the same cloud. Suppose you use AWS and you want to pay a third party SaaS provider for some service involving moderate-to-large amounts of data. Here’s one of many examples: https://www.snowflake.com/en/data-cloud/pricing-options/ And look at this remarkable choice: you get to pick AWS…
Just another reason so many orgs are getting heartburn from going too deep too fast into the cloud.
Oracle Cloud only charges a fraction of want Google, Microsoft, and Amazon charge. Any idea how Oracle is able to keep the cost so low? Or are the others just inflating the price so customers don’t move to the competitor? In that case Oracle deserves a shout out for not applying these vendor lock-in practices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My feeling is that egress is easily measured, so it's where costs that are hard to assess get moved to. It doesn't feel great to be line item billed for stuff at 10x the rate of credible other offers. I think there is also some geo-specific pricing that gets hidden in a global price; bandwidth can be a lot more expensive in some locations than others and if you are charged 5x for egress in south america, nobody will…
Right. Egress is an imperfect, but reasonable metric for overall utilization. If they started charging for CPU hertz above a certain threshold, that'd be a harder sell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t believe this. Operating an internal cloud network is expensive , but it’s expensive because of internal traffic, and they don’t charge for that internal traffic. Egress is just like traffic to any other system, and AWS doesn’t charge for that. Also: > It doesn't feel great to be line item billed for stuff at 10x the rate of credible other offers. It’s quite a bit worse than 10x
AWS charges for internal traffic too, both cross-az and cross-region.
Then, they have the audacity to recommend you make everything Multi-AZ. “Don’t worry, RDS-RDS traffic isn’t billed!” Yes, but the apps running in us-east-1a that are hitting -1b and -1c due to load balancers most assuredly do bill for traffic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> other than: it makes migrating to competitors cost-prohibitive in a subset of cases My theory: it forces third party services into the same cloud. Suppose you use AWS and you want to pay a third party SaaS provider for some service involving moderate-to-large amounts of data. Here’s one of many examples: https://www.snowflake.com/en/data-cloud/pricing-options/ And look at this remarkable choice: you get to pick AWS…
Snowflake's margins are like 90%+ on top of the compute they sell, and they pass on all these costs including egress directly to customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely lucrative enough. The use case you've described isn't particularly uncommon, but lots of companies just pay for the egress. The problem is that there are now multiple generations of software engineers that do not know how bandwidth is priced. They've only used managed providers that charge per unit of ingress/egress, at some fractional dollar per GB.
I’ve had people refuse to believe that bandwidth is actually very cheap and cloud markup is insane (hundreds or even thousands of times cost). I show them bare metal providers and colo that bills by size of pipe rather than transfer. They refuse to believe it or assume there must be a catch. There usually isn’t, though sometimes the very cheapest skimp on things like rich peering and can be slightly slower or less re…
$0.09/GB? I guess that’s just what it costs. Expected when you’ve never looked at, considered, or even heard of things like peering and buying transit or even co-location. Enter 95th percentile billing on a gig port for $500/mo or whatever…
Same goes for hardware. Want to watch something glorious? Take someone who has only ever used VMs, etc in big cloud and give them even a moderate spec new bare metal server. The performance melts their brains.
Then they realize the entire thing - colo, servers, bandwidth, even staff is a fraction of the cost.