
What's the Best Cloud? Probably GCP - pbbakkum
https://quizlet.com/blog/whats-the-best-cloud-probably-gcp
======
StreamBright
I am not sure about the technical merit of this link. Best of show:

"Google probably has the best networking technology on the planet."

How do we quantify this?

"This is important for several reasons. On EC2, if a node has a hardware
problem, it will likely mean that you'll need to restart your virtual
machine."

I would much rather create a service that can tolerate single node outages
than relying on "live migrations". I am not sure what he meant by the SSD
comparison, Amazon EBS that can be SSD but still it is a network mounted
storage.

"Most of GCP's technology was developed internally and has high standards of
reliability and performance."

Guess what AWS was developed for.

I like hand-wavy, articles as much as any other guy, but it seems to me they
picked GCP and wrote an article to justify it, an cooked up some numbers with
single dimension comparisons to make it look like scientific. I wish I was
working on single dimension problems in real life, but it is always more
complex than that. I am more interested in worst case scenarios and SLAs than
micro-benchmark results when comparing cloud vendors. Discarding Azure was
purely arbitrary, in fact, Azure is more than happy running Linux or other
non-Windows operating systems, I am not sure where he got the idea of " Linux-
second cloud".

[https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/running-freebsd-in-
az...](https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/running-freebsd-in-azure/)

~~~
obulpathi
We did a performance analysis of Google Cloud vs AWS. The results are in line
with what is published in the post. The biggest thing that we can not quantify
is "ease of use". Google Cloud is a pleasure to work with. AWS feel so clunky
compared to Google Cloud. Don't take my word for it. Create a VM, login into
it on AWS and Google Cloud, you will change your opinion about what a good
cloud is.

~~~
autotune
If you're using the GUI to manage your resources rather than going the
Infrastructure As Code route, you're probably doing it wrong. You should be
using a tool like Terraform, which lets you use multiple cloud providers
([https://www.terraform.io/docs/providers/](https://www.terraform.io/docs/providers/)),
and can actually tell you if there are any immediate errors before attempting
to launch a resource, so is friendly with Jenkins or any other CI tool you
prefer to use as a result as well.

~~~
obulpathi
We don't use GUI to manage our resources. We use CloudFormation for AWS and
Deployment Manager for Google. Let me tell you a couple of things about those
services. In AWS some resources are zonal, some regional and some are global.
It's a mess to work with. For example, same AMI image has different ids in
different regions. You need to create maps and stuff to make your code work
across regions. Come to Google Cloud, no more zonal/regional/global fuss. An
image is a global resource. It's available by the same id in all regions. Your
infrastructure template looks much cleaner. Combine the power of Jinja, you
can create far powerful templates and evaluate them on the fly. AWS has
"three" queuing systems, "two" storage solutions with different API's and
different quirks. Google just has one and its nails the use cases for queuing
and storage. AWS micro-instance go poof, without any notice. Their NATS are
known for being unreliable. Load balancers can't scale. Every service that I
looked into, Google is way better than AWS.

~~~
defen
For me, GCP comes with unquantifiable existence risk. As in, how do I know
that it won't get shut down in 5 years when some VP sees that it's not
bringing in as much money as it should? I trust Amazon more in this regard,
and their offering is not "so bad" that I feel a need to switch.

~~~
AdamN
Existence risk here is HUGE. If GCP doesn't move the needle, Google will shut
it down. AWS is a much more living organism and I can't see Amazon shutting it
down before their drones take over ...

~~~
mikecb
To shut down GCP, they would be shutting down the same services and
infrastructure that power their own services. The dogfooding memo from years
back is being taken to heart, and you're seeing more and more exposure of
internal services and infrastructure.

The scary thing would be if it ends up reducing the rate of innovation because
they worry about changing APIs or services too much; obsolete accumulates
quickly when you're serving large numbers of people because most business want
to write once run till it's dead. But this is true of any service that exposes
anything but an extreme abstraction.

~~~
sofaofthedamned
Exactly. If it wasn't making the money they'd just be shutting the public
interface to this thing. It's not like it's orthogonal to their usual
business, which is lots of computers and storage doing random workloads.

------
Eugr
They forgot to mention another nice feature of GCE - custom machine types. You
can choose number of vCPUs and amount of memory and also the amount of local
(ephemeral in AWS speak) storage in 375GB increments.

This is a huge advantage. For instance, some of our jobs are computationally-
intensive but relatively light on memory. In GCE I can run 32 core machine
with 28GB RAM and it will cost me $887.68/month (without any sustained use
discounts).

In AWS, the closest option I have is c4.8xlarge (36 cores / 60 GB RAM) which
will cost $1,226.10/mo.

And if I need local (ephemeral) storage in AWS, I'm severely limited in
instance types I can choose from, while in GCE you can attach local SSD to any
instance type, including custom.

If you factor in per-minute billing in GCE and automatic sustained use
discounts, we are talking about serious savings without any advance planning
(required for using reserved instances).

EC2 still has some advantages - it supports GPU-equipped instances, for
example, but for our computational pipelines GCE is a clear winner for now
(and Cloud Dataproc is so much nicer than EMR!).

~~~
StreamBright
This is good to know, I was running into the problem of not having the right
instance type for my workload before. We ended up changing up our stack to
make it fit better on AWS.

~~~
abrookewood
That's pretty annoying ... happened to us as well though. We had a requirement
for PostgreSQL with 512GB of RAM. Can't do that on AWS, so we had to shard the
database.

~~~
Eugr
To be fair, GCE tops at 208 GB RAM currently, so you won't get your instance
type there as well.

~~~
abrookewood
Wow .. that's even lower than AWS (max is 244GB):
[http://www.ec2instances.info/](http://www.ec2instances.info/)

------
partiallypro
"Azure was eliminated since its a Linux-second cloud"

I have a feeling this person never really dove into Azure, and just wrote it
off because it had Microsoft services built in; and of course various
sysadmins still have a strong bias against Microsoft, especially if they are
Open Source advocates. Seems like the entire article is mostly just comparing
AWS to GCP instead of giving an actual overview of the cloud landscape, just
brushes off every other provider (that's not AWS or GCP) without diving into
an actually reason -why.-

~~~
brianwawok
Honest question. If you are a 100% linux shop, what do you gain with Azure? Do
they have better linux chops than GCE or AWS?

~~~
shireboy
To me, the more interesting aspect of any of the clouds is the PaaS offerings.
I like the idea of not knowing or caring what OS my stuff is running on or how
many VMs back it. Throw some Node.js up into a cloud and have it run and scale
automatically without me having to harden, patch, and maintain machines. Same
with data - flip a switch and have a geo-redundant well managed database
service as opposed to configuring and monitoring such a beast myself.

I like Azure Web Apps, Sql, and Storage PaaS offerings, as well as hosted
Mongo and similar 3rd party services. In general, my experience is that they
are cheaper and better managed than most stuff my customers roll themselves.

I would suggest that any "100% anything" shop look at the PaaS offerings of
the various clouds and see if the benefits outweigh the risks.

~~~
boulos
I don't understand your conclusion (Azure is best?). App Engine is far and
away the most battle-hardened PaaS, going from tons of tiny toy apps to the
scale of Snapchat.

I don't disagree that having a PaaS and "marketplace" is important, but I
don't see how you seem to conclude that GCP is less relevant here.

Disclaimer: I work on Compute Engine.

------
kyledrake
I see a lot of these sort of articles, and I really have to bring this up,
because I don't understand why people don't realize it when they decide where
to host their infrastructure:

Bandwidth on GCP (and AWS and most of the other providers) is really, really,
really expensive. $0.12 per gigabyte, upwards of $0.19 per gigabyte for Asia.
Paying $0.12 for every time you send an Ubuntu ISO is crazy. A bored script
kiddie could just run up your bandwidth costs to thousands of dollars just for
the hell of it. A DDoS could make you declare bankruptcy.

I have a server with OVH I can theoretically push 100+TB per month through and
only pay $100. I get DDoS protection included. It may not be perfect DDoS, but
it's not the $6000/mo I'd need to pay for Cloudflare to get the same thing
with GCP (I need wildcards), plus the $0.12 per GB for anything not cached by
them.

I know from people in the industry that they pay less than a cent per GB.
Google, if you want to differentiate your cloud services, start charging
better prices for bandwidth and do something about DDoS (project shield should
be baked into your offerings). $0.02 would be reasonable and you'll still make
a profit. That goes for all the other "great value" cloud services that are
actually very expensive for anybody doing work that actually needs bandwidth
on the internet.

~~~
virtuallynathan
To put those numbers into standard transit pricing using US-East (AWS):

Up to 10 TB / month - $30/Mbps

Next 350 TB / month - $16.50/Mbps

Traffic within the same Region - $3.50/Mbps

Traffic to another region - $6.50/Mbps

The outbound traffic starts at $45/Mbps in AsiaPac and $85/Mbps in Latin
America.

In the US and most of the EU, at >1Gbps (~350TB/mo) volume, transit pricing is
well under $1/Mbps. Most of Asia should be under $10/Mbps, and south america
is quite a bit higher, but not $70/Mbps.

See: [https://www.telegeography.com/press/press-
releases/2015/09/0...](https://www.telegeography.com/press/press-
releases/2015/09/09/ip-transit-prices-continue-falling-major-discrepancies-
remain/index.html)

[http://blog.telegeography.com/bandwidth-and-ip-pricing-
trend...](http://blog.telegeography.com/bandwidth-and-ip-pricing-trends-
in-15-minutes)

~~~
kyledrake
$1/Mbps seems closer to what I would expect the price to be. 30x over market
is an astonishing price markup. I don't understand how any startup I've built
that used a lot of bandwidth could take that risk on infrastructure. I would
actually be concerned about being successful.

------
outside1234
This should really be titled "A comparison of AWS and GCP."

It totally wrote off Azure (2nd in market size) because its a "Linux second"
cloud (what does that even mean in a virtualized world).

Also, you forgot to analyze support and SLAs around functionality. Good luck
with GCP when something goes wrong or they decide to sunset a feature.

~~~
obulpathi
Support is much better on GCP than AWS. Reference:
[https://news.spotify.com/us/2016/02/23/announcing-spotify-
in...](https://news.spotify.com/us/2016/02/23/announcing-spotify-
infrastructures-googley-future/)

One of the reasons why Spotify went with Google Cloud is because of their
superior support.

~~~
outside1234
Spotify is one datapoint, and I hate to be cynical, but was probably paid off
(in free / drastically reduced priced cloud services ala Netflix on AWS) by
Google to write all of that.

Even if not, they are such a large well known name that they probably got
special treatment. The real proof in the pudding is the support that the 99%
get, not the special case 1%.

~~~
vgt
At the end of the article, Quizlet noted their experience with GCP support:

"Overall it was a smooth transition and we're very glad that we picked GCP as
our provider - we've received excellent support and scaled up our deployment
with few incidents."

------
neom
This is the best post on this subject I've read in awhile. If you're building
your application in a modern manner, half the stuff I see in ridiculous
comparison posts shouldn't matter. Disposable infrastructure is a thing. If
you're making a choice of "the best cloud" (k...) with that fact in mind you
should mostly be considering cost over time and capability to innovate on core
offerings. Given unit economics and the continual drop in price of commodity
hardware, everything is going to become utility pricing, and services like
lambda will help you optimize your costs. Personally I'd put all my chips on
AWS over GCP.

Also, nice to see someone finally identify DigitalOcean as a B2C provider.

------
vgt
Another great article previously written by Quizlet on their Google Cloud
efforts:

[https://quizlet.com/blog/287-million-events-per-day-
and-1-en...](https://quizlet.com/blog/287-million-events-per-day-
and-1-engineer-how-i-built-quizlets-data-pipeline-with-bigquery-and-go)

TL;DR: One engineer leveraged Google BigQuery's Streaming API to build a
pipeline to analyze ~300 million events per day in realtime.

------
manishsharan
I don't agree with the OP ; however GCP's sub-hour billing is nice. I need to
process a lot of tasks that take longer that 5 minutes which makes them
unsuitable for AWS Lambda. With GCP , I only end up paying for a maximum of 10
~15 minutes-- which is a nice cost saving. Dear AWS -- if you are reading
this, match this and I will never ever leave you, not even for 10 minutes.

edit : typo

------
sunsu
Unless you rely on UDP!!! [https://code.google.com/p/google-compute-
engine/issues/detai...](https://code.google.com/p/google-compute-
engine/issues/detail?id=87)

We had a gold level support ticket open about this for months and they
recently responded that they are making it a "feature request". Yes, proper
UDP packet reassembly is a " feature request".

~~~
StreamBright
Not all the clouds are equal. :) DC networking is much fun, even when you are
on SDNs.

------
pfarnsworth
When we were using GCP, it would live-migrate our db almost once a day, which
caused us problems that were hard to figure out. I don't believe the frequency
of a live-migrate was anywhere near as close on AWS. I don't know if GCP still
does that as often since this was about 1-2 years ago.

~~~
boulos
The rate of _host failure_ on AWS versus the rate of our live migrations isn't
apples-to-apples. There are a lot of reasons we perform live migration, and
host failure is just one of them (see
[https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2015/03/Google-
Compute-...](https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2015/03/Google-Compute-
Engine-uses-Live-Migration-technology-to-service-infrastructure-without-
application-downtime.html)).

While I'm surprised by your "almost once a day" (seems high), we have also
made a _lot_ of improvements in the last year to make them even less
impactful.

Disclosure: I work on Compute Engine.

------
mwcampbell
I wonder why Quizlet didn't just stick with Joyent but switch from SmartOS to
the newer Linux-based infrastructure containers and/or Docker containers.
Joyent put a lot of effort into reviving LX-branded zones on Illumos precisely
to address the concern that this article raises with using an OS other than
Linux.

Also, why dismiss DigitalOcean as a niche provider for hobbyists? The simple
pricing, with lots of data transfer included, should appeal to a lot of
businesses too.

~~~
bcantrill
(I'm the CTO of Joyent.)

Sadly (and despite repeated pleading), Quizlet didn't bother to do anything --
at all -- with LX-branded zones. This was a bit dispiriting because they were
part of the motivation for the work (namely, a customer of ours that was
upfront with the "impossible" demand of the performance they saw in a SmartOS
container but with their Linux stack). I think that even by the time the LX-
branded zone work was clearly on a production trajectory (i.e., late 2014),
they had already implicitly decided to move away from Joyent to a more
established brand. That's fine, and I don't fault them for it (and I
definitely appreciate their kind words for Joyent in general and our support
and engineering teams in particular) -- but I do wish they'd been more upfront
about their rationale.

------
cortesoft
My main concern with picking GCP would be that Google has a history of
shutting down projects. I feel like they are more likely to shutter GCP than
Amazon is with AWS.

~~~
brazzledazzle
I think if they demonstrate that they dogfood it the way Amazon does it will
go a long way. Based on talks I've seen I know some internal teams use it (or
at least did when it was free for them).

~~~
profeta
they also used google reader for gmail (it was integrated on the top of the
inbox). it didn't stop them from killing it.

~~~
boulos
This has been said a lot, but:

\- Reader wasn't a product that was explicitly bringing in lots of revenue,
Cloud is (and we just hired Diane to run the business).

\- Lots of us regret that Reader was shut down ;).

Disclosure: I work on Compute Engine.

~~~
profeta
The point is not the entire product. Everyone is afraid that the product will
still be around, but the feature that drove them to it will be killed.

and there is no way you can disprove that fear from google products. You guys
do that even with search.

------
wowoc
My main concern with GCP is its unreliability. BigQuery API randomly giving
40x/50x errors (that has been happening for over a year), signed URL API
returning series of 50Xs every few days, CPU on instances going up to 100% for
some unknown reason (they stay in that state until manually rebooted), and
many other bigger or smaller issues. And they never respond to your questions.

The UI is also weird (at least by my taste), for example it is not possible to
search instances by their addresses, it is not possible to spin up more than
one instance at once, and so on. AWS has an ugly console, but it feels more
productive.

~~~
boulos
Sorry to hear you've had a bad time. All of our Generally Available services
have an SLA, including BigQuery:

[https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/sla](https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/sla)

which has a 99.9% monthly uptime target. Are you seeing errors more often than
that?

Additionally (and this isn't required), do you have a support package? I'm
curious where you've been asking questions without response. If it's
StackOverlow, that is best effort, but we do really try.

Disclosure: I work on Compute Engine.

~~~
wowoc
I asked my co-worker who usually contacts support, and in most cases we
actually got some response (mine never got any reply though), but it was
always full of buck passing. Like saying that these routing issues you're
writing about must be caused by your browser, etc., then ignoring further
questions.

------
lobster_johnson
Google's cloud does look extremely promising, but the one thing blocking us
from migrating (which we would ultimately like, I think) is the lack of
PostgreSQL support in CloudSQL. AWS's RDS is mature and pretty great.

------
nottednelson
In a similar vein:
[http://journalofcloudcomputing.springeropen.com/articles/10....](http://journalofcloudcomputing.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13677-015-0049-1)

~~~
vgt
And some of Spotify's experiences with Google Cloud:

[https://labs.spotify.com/2016/03/10/spotifys-event-
delivery-...](https://labs.spotify.com/2016/03/10/spotifys-event-delivery-the-
road-to-the-cloud-part-iii/)

------
dastbe
Does this line strike anyone else as just not true based on their numbers?

    
    
      Quizlet is now the ~50th biggest website in the U.S.

~~~
dberg
Yes
[http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/quizlet.com](http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/quizlet.com)

~~~
mirashii
On the other hand,
[https://www.quantcast.com/quizlet.com](https://www.quantcast.com/quizlet.com)

~~~
dastbe
oof, someone there needs to look into their mobile experience. The homepage is
fine but the minute I search for something it goes to junk.

[http://imgur.com/TcuxQ6t](http://imgur.com/TcuxQ6t)

------
tingley
The disparity in disk snapshot performance was surprising.

------
dcgoss
As others have said, the simplicity of GCP has made it a pleasure to use.

It has a great UI (material design), and the UX makes sense (the dashboard
shows you a summary of your resources, resources are organized by project,
notification/status icon animates when resources are changing, etc). Going
back to the AWS dashboard feels clunky.

There aren't a million different image types for each region and zone -
simple, autoupdated base images are available for Ubuntu, CoreOS, etc.

It has easy to understand base machine types and custom machine types with
tailored specs can be created if needed. Product/service naming is clear (ex.
Compute Engine vs EC2, Cloud Storage vs S3).

Addons like one-click secure web SSH sessions and Cloud Shell are amazing, no
more key pairs to worry about.

Google Container Engine, with a hosted Kubernetes master, is a great concept
and more transparent than closed source AWS ECS.

Their on-demand per minute pricing with sustained usage discounts is almost
always significantly cheaper than AWS on demand instances, and your discounts
are given automatically. Try the two calculators for yourself: Google
([https://cloud.google.com/products/calculator/](https://cloud.google.com/products/calculator/)),
AWS
([https://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html](https://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html)).

Also, I have seen Google engineers all over HN (look at the comments on this
post!) and other sites responding, commenting, and blogging - they seem
actively engaged while I have seen very little from AWS.

That is not to say GCP is without problems. AWS IAM is still superior - it is
easier to grant access to specific services for specific users, or have an
account for a web server to upload to S3. Part of that is due to the fact that
there is more plug-and-play tooling available for AWS today - boto comes to
mind (boto GCP integration isn't as seamless as with AWS), as well as WAL-E.
AWS's new certificate manager with free, auto-renewed SSL certs and
installation on EC2 is awesome. S3 is cheaper than Google Cloud Storage. AWS
has a longer free tier.

Luckily, tools like Terraform allow us to mix and match services from each
cloud.

~~~
lobster_johnson
> It has a great UI (material design) ...

I disagree here. I find Google's UI to be the clunkier one. Sure, AWS is
positively antique, but it's clean, readable, understandable and predictable
in a homely Web 2.0 (or even 1.0) way.

Google's UI seems haphazardly put together by comparison, from the _super
tiny_ font to how common tasks are too often hidden away — the hamburger menu
and the project selector being two examples. The progress of a task is also
often hidden away and fairly inscrutable, such as when creating a container
cluster.

When I started looking into the container support, I found that there's
basically no web console for it. You can create clusters and see some summary
of status about the cluster, but you can't see pods, replication controller
settings, etc. — it turns out that the "Container Engine" is little more than
a prebuilt Linux image with a startup shell script that starts up Kubernetes.
AWS's ECS is the same way, but at least it has screens for creating jobs,
adjusting resource settings and so on.

Google Cloud seems pretty great, but the web console definitely has a long way
to go.

~~~
dcgoss
I believe Container Engine does a little more than you are giving credit for.
Its main feature is that it hosts the Kubernetes master - you don't have to
worry about setting up etcd, high availability, or anything else in regards to
the master or connecting the nodes. Kubernetes also comes with a UI
preinstalled on the master, allowing you to launch services and see info
regarding pods, replication controllers, and more, as well as basic system
resource usage: [http://kubernetes.io/docs/user-
guide/ui/](http://kubernetes.io/docs/user-guide/ui/)

~~~
lobster_johnson
I didn't know about the UI, thanks. But why isn't it built into the web
console?

~~~
dcgoss
Not sure. Perhaps that was a low priority because it is already running/can be
deployed on Kubernetes fairly easily.

------
kalkin
Strange to do a whole long section on price-comparison without talking about
AWS's spot instances, which are often much cheaper than the reserved
instances.

~~~
fhoffa
Note that Google Cloud offers preemptible instances, up to 70% cheaper than
the normal ones.

[https://cloud.google.com/preemptible-
vms/](https://cloud.google.com/preemptible-vms/)

It would be interesting to see Quizlet thoughts on GCP preemptible VMs vs AWS
spot instances and why they think they are better (or not?), but that could be
the subject of a whole different post.

(Disclaimer: I work at Google -
[https://twitter.com/felipehoffa](https://twitter.com/felipehoffa))

~~~
kalkin
Interesting. I did a quick search for "GCP spot instances" and didn't find
anything. I'd be interested in a comparison too!

------
blakesterz
Interesting read. Can someone explain this point to me? "Software-defined
networking means that google.com appears to be one hop away" One hop from...?
Everywhere? Each server? How does that help? I understand 'traceroute' but not
where that single hop to Google comes in and why that's great.

~~~
obulpathi
Yep. That's right.Google has built their custom networking. It's like when a
machine A sends packet to machine B, the packet is handed over to Google SDN
(Software-defined Network), which carries to over their private network and
then injects the packet into machine B. Googles network is an order of
magnitude faster compared to AWS.

~~~
StreamBright
You mean if AWS has 50ms data center latency than GCP has 5ms?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude)

~~~
obulpathi
Google’s network is so fast, however, that this kind of multi-cloud might just
be possible. To illustrate the difference in speeds, we ran a bandwidth
benchmark in which we copied a single, 500 Mb file between two regions. It
took 242 seconds on AWS at an average speed of 15 Mbit/s, and 15 seconds on
GCE with an average speed of 300Mbit/s. GCE came out 20x faster.

Reference: [https://gigaom.com/2013/03/15/by-the-numbers-how-google-
comp...](https://gigaom.com/2013/03/15/by-the-numbers-how-google-compute-
engine-stacks-up-to-amazon-ec2/)

~~~
otterley
What did you use to copy the file? If you used scp, your results are invalid
and you must re-run the test again with a different protocol: you can't take
advantage of large TCP window sizes with it because ssh uses a small, fixed
send/receive buffer size. scp will penalize the performance of large transfers
over high-latency links, even if the bandwidth between them is high.

------
dcgudeman
_From 2007 to 2015 Quizlet ran on Joyent, a cloud platform built on SmartOS,
which is a Solaris fork (Joyent also offers Linux hosting)._

I would like know why they made that choice.

------
tshtf
Security conscious users would be best served by staying with AWS EC2 right
now. GCP lacks all of the IAM functionality in AWS.

~~~
boulos
[https://cloud.google.com/iam](https://cloud.google.com/iam)

This is very recent though, and not considered Generally Available yet across
the platform (meaning fully hardened, supported, and backed by an SLA).

Take another look!

Disclosure: I work on Compute Engine.

~~~
sharpy
Interesting. It seems that Google IAM is very similar to AWS IAM yet very
different in one aspect. In AWS, you can define exactly what subset of
APIs/resources are accessible to a role, which is very flexible, but also can
be very confusing. It seems Google has taken the approach of pre-defining
sensible roles.

------
shaftway
I've just got to say, this is probably the best article I've ever read, all
thanks to Cloud-to-Butt.

------
betaby
Well, "Compute Engine networks do not support IPv6 at all."

~~~
jpatokal
"However, Google is a major advocate of IPv6 and it is an important future
direction."

[https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/networks-and-
firewalls](https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/networks-and-firewalls)

------
merb
The Best Cloud is probably a combination of all. Since that would give you the
highest Availability.

~~~
abalos
This really sounds like a "theoretical" best. Practically this sounds like a
huge burden on developers.

~~~
keithb-
Not trying to single you out (your statement is totally on point), but
generally we need a word for this developer-centric view of Cloud. My kids
write javascript and might be considered developers, but they don't have the
faintest idea about operating systems, containers, services, or anything non-
superficial in the stack let alone IAM, I18N, consensus, etc. Cloud is not any
less of an operational model as it is a development platform.

Anyone else have to read "Madame Bovary" in high school? Maybe this focus on
developer is a form of provincialism.

Come on: someone smarter than me must have coined this already.

------
jessaustin
So much drama for reserved instances. Different prices for different terms of
service is a centuries-old business practice. If it's not for you, then don't
buy it.

~~~
wmf
Pointing out that automatic discounts are strictly better than reserved
instances sounds like actionable information, not drama IMO.

