c5 wasn't available to me when I made that comment, or at least c5 numbers weren't — we have them now, although we're observing ~10 µs worse than your one-off i

c5 wasn't available to me when I made that comment, or at least c5 numbers weren't — we have them now, although we're observing ~10 µs worse than your one-off in ours. It's certainly a nice improvement over what we see on the c4s. Is that using a placement group to ensure proximity (I believe our tests do, but I'd have to double check)? Our benchmarking philosophy is generally to aim for "default" numbers for GCP and "best" numbers for others -- keeps us honest about our "fresh out of the box" behavior. Also, if we should be seeing better on earlier instance types, I'd love to know what we're potentially doing wrong.