5 ms·
Best networking is a dubious claim. On the bigger AWS instances you can bypass the hypervisor with SR-IOV. AFAIK you still can't do that with GCP. So if you rea
by eloff 11y ago
Best networking is a dubious claim. On the bigger AWS instances you can bypass the hypervisor with SR-IOV. AFAIK you still can't do that with GCP. So if you really need maximum network performance AWS will likely win, especially on latency.
- zbjornson 11y agoOn the contrary, this is one of the factors where GCP wins hands-down. In addition to the benchmark shown in the OP, check out one I posted on slide 14 of [1]. GCP achieves Gbit speeds on almost all instance types, and has higher speeds than AWS's biggest machines. [1] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1B1jvWWh0ACaDv4ryEzLlH-KropXUNf6y4IGGjIL5uBo/mobilepresent#slide=id.g109eca9a3a_0_18 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1B1jvWWh0ACaDv4ryEzLl...
- eloff 11y agoI stand corrected. It also appears from those charts that the bigger GCP machines have more than 10gbps connection. It looks like 2x10gbps. That would explain why instances of all sizes are able to push more network traffic. Mind you the benchmarks are for bulk transfer with 9001 MTU. With more jittery workloads with lots of small packets, like a webserver has to deal with, then you see the benefit of SR-IOV. So AWS may still have the advantage on some workloads, and some measures (maybe latency, maybe CPU usage per packet.) However, it's clear if Google can support SR-IOV in the future they will mop the floor with AWS on networking because their network infrastructure is obviously superior.