2020 Cloud Report: AWS vs. GCP vs. Azure
cockroachlabs.com
cockroachlabs.com
That's kinda weird. How about including multi-year discounts? These are available to everyone.
[1] https://azure.microsoft.com/en-ca/pricing/reserved-vm-instan...
[2] https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/reserved-instances/
[3] https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/instances/signing-up-c...
PostgreSQL 12.0 Now Available in Amazon RDS Database Preview Environment
https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2019/11/postgresq...
I don't want to manage anything that needs to be clustered. Technologies like that often need trained engineers with good knowledge of how the product behaves if we want to manage it ourselves.
How many people are running a cloud account with ONLY a cockroachdb in it?
Your point seems pretty obtuse tbh.
If you have a stable set of instances and a known lifetime for them, then, before trying to calculate whether AWS or GCP is cheaper, step back and plug those same numbers into a regular non-cloud DC managed-hardware-leasing pricing page.
You have to factor in the total cost of ownership (TCO) to make a fair comparison, which in almost ALL the cases, you are more than likely to overspend on bare metal boxes on your own DC. Some of the TCO components are:
- DC staff salaries
- Electricity
- Networking bandwidth
- SLA guarantee (yes this a hidden cost, e.g. if your DC power is out, you owe your customers fees depending on your SLA).
- etc.
But Amazon and GCP can go down too and their SLA does not necessarily fully insure against your SLA.
The crux of this is how do you compare in managing site reliability. Perhaps you have a world class team you could do that better than yes my point there is moot. But 99% of the time, it's not.
And, frankly, your parent was being generous. Even if you only look at elastic workloads, the workload has to be a) extremely elastic and b) not fall into some pretty common patterns for cloud to make any kind of sense.
Also, many have been in operation since before AWS was a thing, and some are larger. So I can't imagine what AWS knows about running a datacenter that others don't.
Now maybe in theory if you can build something to be fully one with the cloud, considering all edge cases, and limiting yourself to only cloud-zen tools (or building your own, or doing vendor lock in). In theory, with enough money, I guess the cloud lets you maybe achieve higher reliability.
The fundamentals of EC2 (lack of dual NICs, dual power supplies and BBU RAID + virtualization and general complexity) means that a single instance is way less reliable (let alone, much worse value) than a single dedicated box. The complexity you need to throw on top of that building block (in the shape of lock-in, compromise, money, latency, application complexity or a combination of these) is pretty significant.
Building out your application across multiple regions in AWS is not much different than using multiple DCs from a managed host. The clouds provide live migration, spot instances, and fast global VPC networks that can make it much easier, but you also pay the premium for it.
You know, the primary offering of DC providers like Softlayer, Hetzner, etc.
With a managed service, "utilities" (salaries, electricity) are factored into the lease. And bandwidth, as it turns out, is cheap-enough that many DCs will give it to you unmetered, since you can't use enough through the limited links they give you to dent their uplink.
Now SoftLayer I'm not so sure about - interested to hear from anyone offering services to say, gov or health from managed hosting and how that compares cost and experience-wise to AWS, Azure, GCP.
The first two that I looked at, Hivelocity and ReliableSite both seem to have a number of certifications, as does our current provider, LeaseWeb.
Is there a specific certification that's really sets AWS/Azure/GCP apart?
Also, there are a lot of things that the big cloud providers manage for you. I haven't dealt with DC managed-hardware, but I imagine that you probably have to do a lot more to set up networking, provision VMs on raw hardware, etc.
I do but I don't even know how to assemble my own computer, much less deal with bare metal for servers. I want to stay as far away from hardware as possible.
I don't know how cloud providers even measure the CPU-time. Probably from VMs. What about services like logging, health-checks and load balancer? Is there a position for that too?
At the end of the month I get an invoice from my providers that say that I needed X processing power. I have to believe it and just accept the price if it is worth it.
I am sure there is elaborate performance monitoring software out there, but I doubt many developers really verify the bills they get.
Providers could just randomly add a few dollars on my bills and I heavily doubt that I would notice. Not wanting to give them any ideas here...
So a rented server in the end gives you much more control about unknowns related to costs. Doesn't mean it has to be cheaper and is as easy to maintain.
Not really.
On-demand capacity is (a) what the cloud is known for and (b) a reasonable common denominator.
Reservations get a lot more complicated with policies around usage accounting and transferring and selling them.
Obviously there is a lot more available than hourly VPS (reserved, interruptable), but that's a decent benchmark to start with.
They’re going to generate unsubs and spam reports.
That’s basically the entire point of GDPR. Stop making people trade personal information for “free” content.
You're free to not share your email if you don't want to read the report. The rest of us can make our own decision.
GDPR doesn't have much standing against gated content and many top law firms agree. There's also a combination of legitimate interest, business vs personal emails, and contract in effect to sign up for communications as workarounds. And to be extra clear, GDPR has no enforcement outside of the EU so it can't do anything against a US-based database company anyway.
How did GCP and Azure catch-up to AWS Nitro in one year which IIRC is a coming together of minimalistic micro-vms, hardware-accelerated network and IO cards, hardware offload for encryption and other maintenance tasks... a work that was 5 years in the making [0]?
[0] https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/rUY-00yFlE4?t=1m45s
Amazon's original fix reduced performance substantially, which lot's of people noticed, but no one knew why till the vulnerabilities were announced.
Meanwhile Google built a clever workaround which minimized the pain. It was really a mic-drop moment from Google and I wish someone would dig in deep and tell the whole story.
At this point I'm sure AWS has merged Google's patches, but it showed how much Google was investing in their GCP offerings.
I think all the clouds use the same basic physical CPU sets, so I'm more surprised about the perf being much different in previous years, than I am about the perf being similar this year. Maybe the hypervisor layer was much more efficient at AWS or something?
> Not only do their top performing machines beat each network’s top performing machines, but, so to do their bottom performing machines. Even their least performant machine (n1-highcpu-16 in figure 10) is consistent with AWS’ maximum network throughput as seen in our tests.
> This is especially impressive because last year, AWS outperformed GCP in our network tests. It is a credit to GCP that they have improved their network performance and we are left wondering exactly how they accomplished this improvement.
Also, if your goal is to get optimal cost/FLOP and you are computing pretty much constantly then you shouldn't be using the cloud, to be honest. If you are IO limited or if you have burst use then maybe, but for cost/FLOP the kings are still consumer GPUs and Threadrippers, by very far and large.
A small nitpick if you're reading. Fig 19: Sotrage: Azure Write Throughput the y axis has an incorrect label of "1,00" when it should be "1,000"
Disclosure: I work for Azure networking.
Can you answer why -- for the love of God -- why Azure IPv6 networking is doled out in microscopically small /124 blocks (16 addresses)!?
The standard is a /64 at a minimum for residential connections, and /48 is recommended for most premises, particularly business connections. Azure could easily obtain a /32 for each of their regions, providing a very roomy 4 billion /64 scopes per data centre.
Right now, if I want to "embrace IPv6" and all of its advantages, such as a flat address space and the elimination of NATs, I will have to either:
1) Juggle a bunch of /124 prefixes and carefully allocate services to them. This is a load of fiddly scripting or manual work.
2) Probably be forced to NAT anyway!
3) Pay for addresses that ought to be too cheap to meter.
> compares virtual machines
I mean cloud is different for everyone, but for me a VM is far from cloud. It's the least differentiable item in each of their suite.
https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2019/12/amazon-ec...
Is this a viable strategy? Might it be better to provide the report without the annoying engineers with the email requirement? How many readers of the report are interested in Cockroach Labs, rather than the benchmarks?
... because the people who made the PDF content want to make a trade: your email address for their PDF whitepaper.
The industry jargon for this technique is "inbound marketing".[1]
>Is this a viable strategy?
Yes, it often is. But I do get that it annoys a lot of people. That's why 99.9% of the time, I also don't bother giving my email address just to read pdf whitepapers.
It's a voluntary trade -- and like you, I usually choose not to do it.
The popularity of this thread illustrate that there is a need/use for this content - so Cockroach nailed the bait, but have massively overshot the type of trap required to convert these savvy mice.
The steps I mentioned above are what, maybe a few hundred dollars. Trust me, their lead generation pipeline most likely already subscribes to this and utilizes it with minimal concern.
There are plenty of CRM tools that can flag out BS domains and/or low value not worth it domains.
If you are a person who gets by using 10minuteemail, you are not their target market. So will their target demographic.
The extra hop is very necessary for prevalidation. And they will be just fine with it.
You on the other hand, being the cheapskate that you are, have to commit an extra 5 minutes every time you generate these BS emails. Obviously you don't value your time as much. And that is why, again, you are not the target market because you extract no business value from accessing the knowledge they spent time and money aggregating for you. Your getting the PDF is inconsequential to both them and yourself.
So go ahead, no one really cares.
EDIT: Lol, you was not referring to you specifically, just the folks who think they are being smart or outsmarting corps by using these services like 10minutemail or whatever it's called
I am squarely in their target demographic and yet refuse to provide my email. I like keeping noise low in my work inbox - if I will decide I'd like to buy something from cockroachDB, I'll approach them. It's purely negative value to have them approach me - I have never received any useful messages by being on a marketing list.
It takes way less than 5 minutes to generate a temporary email address.
Also, I fail to see how refusing to provide your email address correlates with frugality. If anything, people who are cheapskates would be happy to pay with anything but money.
I seriously doubt it. Only companies already heavily invested in Oracle are taking their offering seriously. They are pretty late to the party.
https://www.platformonomics.com/2019/02/follow-the-capex-clo...
"Google’s incremental CAPEX spend in 2018 is about what cloud pretender Oracle has spent on CAPEX throughout their entire history."