Everything else in AWS looks to be automated except for their pricing which I'm assuming they're avoiding adopting an automated sustained usage model so their prices appear cheaper then they are by taking advantage of manual inefficiencies from trying to map reserved pricing to services used.
Reserved pricing is an unnecessary waste of time/effort turning us into manual book keepers where we have to try carefully match our reserved pricing plan to each service we use. It's time consuming and frustrating when you purchase the wrong reserved pricing SKU or are not notified when you have instances not covered by a reserved pricing so you end up paying the highest rate despite it running 24/7.
It's frustrating enough that I've started moving servers that don't require access to other AWS services to hetzner.
We've got Redshift reserved instances and due to growth, we need to upgrade our node type soon (even in the same class!!). But because you can't reuse, recycle or sell the reservations between node types, we have to let all of our small node reservations expire before, complicated by the fact they were already bought in several layers.
There's no reserved instances market for Redshift (all of this looks like not very well thought out from the beginning) and it took us hours to finally come up with a semi good plan to do this (which will still cost thousands of dollars in lost expired instances). All of this was completely unproductive time in regards to our product, so the antithesis of what AWS stands for.
Managing financial matters on AWS is such a royal PITA, I'm so glad we switched 90% of our stack to Google.
They even give you a big fat yellow warning sign directly in the console: "Want so SAVE money? One click here and we'll resize your instance online instantly." Leave it on for a month and get nice discounts automatically. It's heaven.
(Yes, BigQuery. I'd LOVE to, however there's a lot of very good reasons we're still on Redshift...)
Update: I realize that their ability to offer this pricing schedule also has to do with their specific technical infrastructure and migration capabilities; but it's clearly not impossible to make these features a reality since it's been done already.
It also opens up opportunities for spinning up a fresh VM for every CI build. GCP startup latency is pretty good, so this might be doable for some CI systems.
I asked a question about it here a while ago https://serverfault.com/questions/845298/no-network-connecti...
Checked again just now, approx. 40 seconds between pressing START in the console UI and until I can ping 188.8.131.52, using serial console on Debian Stretch.
If anyone have a clue how to improve this I'd be most happy to hear about it. I'm using this for CI builds.
Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud.
With the to/from API path this routing is much simpler since you don't get the N^2 behavior.
Again, Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud (but I've never contributed engineering-wise to Cloud networking).
We aim for global convergence of network state as sort of an ongoing goal, but it's a distributed system with failure domain isolation, so that goal is necessarily flexible. There are different rates of convergence, and Solomon is certainly right that routes to first party services are some of the easiest to converge. Internet connectivity is to a certain extent the hardest thing to converge, as in our premium tier (which up until recently was our only tier) we aim to keep data on Google's network for as much of its journey as possible. At the extreme, this means a lot of edge nodes learning that a given external IP belongs to your VM.
Part of it is also just the mundane business of reconciling what a given configuration event means and propagating that to interested parties. With respect to your firewall example, it's really just another config change event with some set of implications for routes that are added or removed.
Anyway, that's my hand wavy explanation. Hopefully it's helpful!
I love what I do, and I love talking about it to anyone who will listen. I find Google's infrastructure is fantastically exciting -- sometimes too exciting, rarely boring. Most of the time I wish I could share more. Always happy to hear someone has found what I can share interesting!
Not used to GCE, what sort of timeframe is this expected in?
Kinda wondering what the expected time would be for a process that's something like:
Download something from GCS
Upload to GCS
I know there's a lot of variables there, but does anyone have a quick idea of what this should be?
(Feel free to answer me internally :) )
| "premium operating system images including Windows Server, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and SUSE Enterprise Linux Server"
(disclosure: I work for GCP)
(disclosure: I don't consider what I do to be work)
Disclosure: I helped write this blogpost ;). (And I consider what Danny does to be work)
(disclosure: I work with the above two)
Fake reviews/astroturfing comments can hurt a brand quite severely. The riskiest situation of course is talking about a competitor's product (which we kind of are here).
It doesn't have to sound like a legal disclaimer, but its nice to identify your relationship to the product may have (even subconscious) bias.
Until then, here is my shameless plug: https://medium.com/google-cloud/three-simple-steps-to-save-c...
(Disclaimer: I work at GCP.)
Basically the line is even incorrect since I can use my own ThreadFactory if I'm on a Request/Backend Thread and clone the Environment and copy it into each Thread.
There are so many things I'd love to use Compute Engine for but storage is obscenely expensive for my needs and egress pricing makes it impossible to get data out after I send it in.
(disclosure: The cake is a lie)
(I work for Google)
Why do GCP employees always post in HN articles about how much "better" GCP is than AWS or how GCP "did it first"?
Our company literally can't use GCP, full stop, because Google is completely ignoring IPv6 support. I heard load balancers are now in beta, which just terminates IPv6 and connects to the back end with IPv4.
When am I going to be able to make an outbound IPv6 connection from GCP? Specifically the Compute Engine VMs.
Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud.
Edit: I'm not sure why you're being downvoted, it's a fair criticism.
(Disclosure: I'm supposed to be working right now)
Disclosure: I like turtles.
Take a look at our announcement from last week for more info: https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2017/09/announcing-ipv6...
Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud (so I indirectly benefit from you using our services)
GCP is behind on features, but I find the features work very well and are super nice to work with.
Exactly. Here's one scenario:
> "I think this is a really fun movie, and I thought the ending was very smart (disclosure, I did some FX on the sequences with the Shnorp, and I have an affair with the producer's sister)"
> "You are both right, actually: the running time for the US release is 94 minutes, whereas the Swedish contains the Shnorp nipple scenes which increase the total length to 96 minutes. (full disclosure, I was a roadie on the set)"
Guess what I find obnoxious and see many discussions filled with?
If it's in a dictionary, thanks for the fact, no I don't care who you work for or how "excited" you are and how "awesome" your team is and whatnot. It's so incredibly needy and tacky and seems the norm now; where the person calling it out actually gets piled on, while BS like this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15342721 is fine. It is what it is.
There's no coordination or conniving to this, people just like rad stuff.
Also, I /wish/ I was a Compute Engineer.
I think put the disclosure upfront just make things clearer that we are not dragging. You already know where our butts sit and you can judge our words from pure-technical perspective.
Otherwise, people may say Google hire a bunch of ghost accounts just for promotion purpose.
I personally prefer the former.
There is basically no discussion. Unless we are counting misleading companions between GCP products and their competitors as discussion. :-/
Also what lack of notice are you referring to? This blog post is the notice.
Not per second billing.
Nice try google.
It's a valid criticism.
we are pleased to announce that we're extending per-second billing across our platform.
we were first to do it.
it's actually useless (but we were first!).
let me show you why: ...
but we are forced to do it because of <unnamed competitor>
bunch of ads of why we are cool and doing "real innovation", compared to that stupid other competitor that forced us to enable per second billing.
we are still better than competitor so..
(disclosure: I don't work for Google)