Slashdot Mirror
By the Numbers: How Google Compute Engine Stacks Up To Amazon EC2
vu1986 writes "Google launched its EC2 rival, Google Compute Engine, last June, it set some high expectations. Sebastian Standil's team at Scalr put the cloud infrastructure service through its paces — and were pleasantly surprised at what they found. A note about our data: The benchmarks run to collect the data presented here were taken twice a day, over four days, then averaged. When a high variance was observed, we took note of it and present it here as intervals for which 80 percent of observed data points fall into."
Just when you start relying on it, Amazon won't shut it down.
You mean a cloud service in "limited preview" is much faster than a cloud server open to the public and heavily used?
There much be some fancy engineering behind the scenes to make a lightly used service run faster than a heavily used one.
I want to see the benchmarks after GCE is open to the public.
So having Amazon and Google is good for competition, because they drown out the excellent small providers and thus having LESS options?
Look at politics. Having only 2 things to select from is not competition. It is an illusion of competition.
Yes, 2 is better then 1. But 3 is better then 2 and 20 is better then 3.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Twice a day over 4 days ... 8 samples ... this is supposed to be useful in some way?
You should be ashamed of yourself for presenting this data as if it has some sort of meaning at all, let alone a useful one.
You're going to need a couple orders of magnitude more samples before you even start thinking about being any sort of useful metric.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
If you think Google (or any company) wouldn't try to monetize every bit of data that they get their hands on, you're ridiculously naive.
It is fast because nobody is using it.
Currently, EC2 pretty well dominates and stifle the small providers without any help at all.
In fact, Google, Azure, VMware, IBM, HP and any other large providers coming into prominence may help the small providers. Currently, a lot of people beileve that hosting==EC2. If large competitors change the mindset to have customers realize there is a choice, that realization may have benefits. E.g. if a CIO directs a team to 'take everything to EC2', that's pretty much a guaranteed loss for the small provider. If CIO directs instead 'take everything to a hosting provider', that team then is empowered to allow more providers to compete for the business, even if the CIO mindset was changed only because of the big players.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
When it's a company paying for this service, Google will not be looking at their data.
First, it's bad practice. Companies won't pay if they think their data is available to be read/hacked/distrod/etc.
Second, if Google is smart, which I'm sure they are, the data won't even be in a format that google is able to decrypt. They don't want to be knowingly storing potentially illegal things, so they will keep it in a format that they can't access without the client's private keys.
Why is that ironic? The difficulty/pain for each of them to support the "other" OS isn't the same.
Linux is easier for cloud providers. eg no license tracking, billing or activation type stuff (for most distros at least) to worry about, small Linux server instances require less resources than Windows, just a bunch of files to deploy - no installation processes, instance specific UUIDs etc
Windows is harder (for everyone but MS) for the opposite reasons.
Has anyone had to interact with Google support for this? Is it anything like the other services?
none