3 ms·

> even relatively remote locations become "accessible" for 100 Gbps+ fiber or microwave connectivity, and _very_ remote locations for tens of Gbps. I’m guessin

> even relatively remote locations become "accessible" for 100 Gbps+ fiber or microwave connectivity, and _very_ remote locations for tens of Gbps. I’m guessing: 1. You’ve never priced out said circuits before 2. Never seen the lead times and minimum contract periods on them 3. Don’t realize in general how hard it is to actually max out circuits like that. Shipping / freight company is generally still a preferred solution to moving very very large amounts of data even in 2020. Your own employer still ships large datasets that way too. Here’s a link from 2007: https://royal.pingdom.com/fedex-still-faster-than-the-internet/ https://royal.pingdom.com/fedex-still-faster-than-the-intern... But from contacts I know inside Google, it’s still done regularly.

jsolson 7y ago
Pretty good idea on #3 (and for much much much larger links), and a decent idea for #1. If I had 1-10 PB to move I could totally see most people using FedEx to ship JBODs around. For small transfers it makes sense, and we also have a product for this. Internally I'd use our WAN for those, which is where this now starts to make sense: Amazon does not have anywhere near the global WAN capacity that we do, nor so far have they had a good reason to have that capacity. If you've got the global capacity to allow a customer to peer to your nearest location (and your nearest location likely isn't too far away for most of the world), fiber makes sense for large (~EB-scale, which I assume anyone with 100PB+ is well on their way to 1EB+) amounts of data. We have a product for these peerings (primarily for customers in colos): https://cloud.google.com/interconnect/docs/concepts/dedicated-overview https://cloud.google.com/interconnect/docs/concepts/dedicate...
- wildfire 7y ago
  That product looks exactly like AWS Direct Connect Also, when I go to: https://www.infrastructure.aws/ https://www.infrastructure.aws/ (annoyingly I can't link to the network) it says 100Gbps of WAN capacity around the AWS global network. I did a quick search and wasn't able to find what it is for GCP -- do you have a link handy?

jsolson 7y ago

Pretty good idea on #3 (and for much much much larger links), and a decent idea for #1. If I had 1-10 PB to move I could totally see most people using FedEx to ship JBODs around. For small transfers it makes sense, and we also have a product for this. Internally I'd use our WAN for those, which is where this now starts to make sense: Amazon does not have anywhere near the global WAN capacity that we do, nor so far have they had a good reason to have that capacity. If you've got the global capacity to allow a customer to peer to your nearest location (and your nearest location likely isn't too far away for most of the world), fiber makes sense for large (~EB-scale, which I assume anyone with 100PB+ is well on their way to 1EB+) amounts of data. We have a product for these peerings (primarily for customers in colos): https://cloud.google.com/interconnect/docs/concepts/dedicated-overview https://cloud.google.com/interconnect/docs/concepts/dedicate...

wildfire 7y ago
That product looks exactly like AWS Direct Connect Also, when I go to: https://www.infrastructure.aws/ https://www.infrastructure.aws/ (annoyingly I can't link to the network) it says 100Gbps of WAN capacity around the AWS global network. I did a quick search and wasn't able to find what it is for GCP -- do you have a link handy?