3 ms·
Aside from the fact that total egress for AWS is biggger and thus (slightly) more ddos resistant ... what exactly is the quality difference here ? There's plen
by iofj 11y ago
Aside from the fact that total egress for AWS is biggger and thus (slightly) more ddos resistant ... what exactly is the quality difference here ?
There's plenty of dedi providers that are big enough to prevent real outages though. And it doesn't protect you as a customer, it just protects you from other Amazon customers getting ddossed, but Amazon doesn't keep your website reachable if you're getting ddossed (no dedi providers do).
- thrownaway2424 11y agoAWS has at least 23 points of presence and Google has at least 70. I think you are seriously underestimating the size of Amazon's or Google's networks.
- iofj 11y agoThat doesn't protect you as much as you think. Ddos resiliency really depends on the amount of unused (!) available capacity, in absolute value. And Amazon, I guarantee you, doesn't have that much unused network capacity. That would be very, very expensive at their scale.
- cherioo 11y agoA lot of the time ddos also depends on number of locations, because typically only one customer is attacked, and typically that one customer is only in a few location. Also, I'm not sure I buy the argument Amazon has small unused capacity in absolute value, relative maybe. They could also have 5% across 23 locations so if your application is distributed it can have even better resiliency.
- thrownaway2424 11y agoAgain, I think you are _dramatically_ underestimating the size of these networks.
- biot 11y agoAmazon AWS is 10 times bigger than the next 14 competitors combined. [0] Amazon's unused network capacity is likely far larger than any other single provider's total available capacity, possibly with the exception of Azure. If it's expensive for Amazon to have multiple Tbps of unused capacity, imagine how expensive it is for any other provider. To match the absolute spare bandwidth of Amazon having only 1/10 extra network capacity, another cloud provider might need to have keep its network utilization at only 5%. Maintaining a network capable of serving over 20x your current utilization "just in case of DDoS" is bloody expensive. [0] http://www.businessinsider.com/nobody-gets-fired-for-buying-amazon-2015-5?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/nobody-gets-fired-for-buying-...
- vgt 11y agoGoogle's SDN is seriously massive. Petabit of bisectional bandwidth: http://googlecloudplatform.blogspot.com/2015/06/A-Look-Inside-Googles-Data-Center-Networks.html http://googlecloudplatform.blogspot.com/2015/06/A-Look-Insid... One major difference between Google and AWS is that Google will carry your packets between data centers on its backbone by default. Google will also carry packets as close to the customer as possible, whereas AWS will dump it off as quickly as possible. So, even between Google Cloud and AWS it's not an apples to apples comparison.