4 ms·

To be fair, AWS gives you bigger discounts for RI than GCP's sustained use. That makes sense; someone gotta pay for the risk. This said, GCPs committed use dis

To be fair, AWS gives you bigger discounts for RI than GCP's sustained use. That makes sense; someone gotta pay for the risk. This said, GCPs committed use discounts still seem to be a better deal than convertible RIs. Looking at the run-of-the-mill 64GB RAM standard instance: AWS 1yr all upfront: $0.458 GCP commited use: $0.47878 AWS 1yr no upfront: $0.491 GCP sustained use: $0.532 AWS 1yr no upfront convertible: $0.564 edit: confused commited vs sustained use for a second there

user5994461 8y ago
The customer takes all the risk. Reserving instances is a bad deal, that should be assimilated to gambling.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  I don't think this is like gambling. There is a certain amount of clarity or volatility in a system. Volatility will entail cost that will effectively be passed onto the buyer one way or another. Google can be smart about it and try to do some predictions, but ultimately, the customer should in many cases know much more about what their usage patterns will be. This information reduces volatility and therefore cost ... passed on to the buyer. If you say "I want to rent 10 cars for a month" vs. "I want the ability to rent from 2 to 20 cars for a month, not sure about what" - what is the intrinsic cost going to be for the provider? Even with demand smoothing over a large client base ... the increased volatility is cost. I don't think this is related to gambling. In many ways this is really similar to financial planning and I think the language of this article will make way more sense to financial types than technical types. I might even go so far as saying this is really a problem for financial ops, and not devops.
  - user5994461 8y ago
    It's gambling, the customer loses money when he bets on the wrong instances.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      By that definition, all of business is gambling.
    - yladiz 8y ago
      What is your definition of gambling?
- SteveNuts 8y ago
  It's not a bad deal, companies purchase physical servers all the time which are around 3 year investments. Plus you can prorate your reserved instances to larger ones for only the difference in cost.

user5994461 8y ago

The customer takes all the risk. Reserving instances is a bad deal, that should be assimilated to gambling.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
I don't think this is like gambling. There is a certain amount of clarity or volatility in a system. Volatility will entail cost that will effectively be passed onto the buyer one way or another. Google can be smart about it and try to do some predictions, but ultimately, the customer should in many cases know much more about what their usage patterns will be. This information reduces volatility and therefore cost ... passed on to the buyer. If you say "I want to rent 10 cars for a month" vs. "I want the ability to rent from 2 to 20 cars for a month, not sure about what" - what is the intrinsic cost going to be for the provider? Even with demand smoothing over a large client base ... the increased volatility is cost. I don't think this is related to gambling. In many ways this is really similar to financial planning and I think the language of this article will make way more sense to financial types than technical types. I might even go so far as saying this is really a problem for financial ops, and not devops.
- user5994461 8y ago
  It's gambling, the customer loses money when he bets on the wrong instances.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    By that definition, all of business is gambling.
  - yladiz 8y ago
    What is your definition of gambling?
SteveNuts 8y ago
It's not a bad deal, companies purchase physical servers all the time which are around 3 year investments. Plus you can prorate your reserved instances to larger ones for only the difference in cost.