4 ms·
It seems he means in terms of networking as in the prior comment: "I was particularly impressed by how you could set up “global” routing, which means load balan
by campers 6y ago
It seems he means in terms of networking as in the prior comment:
"I was particularly impressed by how you could set up “global” routing, which means load balancing against resources that run in multiple Google regions"
GCP has a global networking plane, so in a single GCP project you can have resources and networking configured together from every region/AZ around the world. In AWS (which I don't use so don't quote me, and please correct me) regions are very separate from each other. You would need to create separate accounts for resources in different regions and then configure the networking between them.
- jpgvm 6y agoThe big difference is AWS doesn't provide a GSLB (global server load balancing) service outside of Cloudfront. GCP on the other hand provides L7 GSLB. You still need to create VPCs in each region and manage those but broadly speaking building a multi-region architecture with GCP is a lot better. Hell multi-zone is also easier in GCP because there are more regional primitives available.
- mwarkentin 6y agoWould https://aws.amazon.com/global-accelerator/ https://aws.amazon.com/global-accelerator/ be what you’re talking about?
- jpgvm 6y agoI haven't actually used this but this looks very similar to Google GSLB actually, in which case that is great news.
- nijave 6y agoAWS also let's you DNS load balance on top of regional load balancers (there is some DNS traffic management with health check integration)
- jpgvm 6y agoYes, R53 can help you build your own GSLB by using DNS health checks and georouting but it's not the full picture.
- tatersolid 6y agoI think the bigger difference is that layer-2 really doesn’t exist in GCP or Azure but it sort-of does in AWS. This is why virtual nets can span geographic or AZ boundaries in non-AWS clouds; they always basically do layer-3 routing even for “local subnet” traffic.