4 ms·

No, not true at all. What do you think Google and Microsoft run their cloud services on?

admax88qqq 5y ago
Google does not run the bulk of their services on GCP. Unlike AWS, GCP was not a productization of their existing infrastructure, but rather a separate cloud product developed fairly independently. I'm sure that's changing with time. YouTube also has its own infrastructure independent of GCP and the rest of Google
- marcan_42 5y ago
  GCP is not separate from Google's core infrastructure; rather, it's built on top of it. That means that while you can certainly have GCP specific outages, this kind of core infra "everything is down" situation is almost guaranteed to hit everything, GCP and not included. A lot of GCP sub-products are productionizations of existing Google tech; e.g. BigQuery is a public version of Dremel, an internal database/query engine they'd been using internally for a while. I'm pretty sure YouTube hasn't had their own infra in quite a while. When I was there ~8 years ago I think it was all integrated already. Certainly database, video processing, storage, CDN were all on core Google infra, and I'm sure the frontends were too though I don't remember looking into that explicitly.
  - ec109685 5y ago
    There aren’t 100k Googlers developing on top off GCP services to get their job done on a daily basis. That’s the big difference between the two clouds level of dog fooding.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      > There aren’t 100k Googlers developing on top off GCP services to get their job done on a daily basis. Doing something on top of GCP rather than the normal way at Google was a huge pain. Borg tutorials and documentation were just far superior, I could get a thing running on borg in an hour from not knowing anything about borg, I spent a week trying to get something running internally on GCP but still couldn't get it right (our team wanted to see if we could run things on GCP so I was tasked with testing it, I couldn't find anyone who knew how to do it so we just gave up after I didn't make any real progress). That was the worst documented thing I've ever worked with. And even worse the internal GCP pages were probably running in california and probably weren't tested from Europe, so the page took like 2 seconds between mouse click and it responded to anything. That was years ago though and I no longer work there, but at least back then the work to make using GCP internally seamless wasn't done. Maybe it is simpler if you run everything in it and don't need it play well with borg, but there is a reason why it isn't popular internally. And likely you wont find many engineers who left Google who recommend you will use it, since they probably didn't test it and if they did it probably was a bad experience (unless they worked on GCP).
- WoahNoun 5y ago
  >GCP was not a productization of their existing infrastructure Neither was AWS.
geoduck14 5y ago
AWS, of course

Google does not run the bulk of their services on GCP. Unlike AWS, GCP was not a productization of their existing infrastructure, but rather a separate cloud product developed fairly independently. I'm sure that's changing with time. YouTube also has its own infrastructure independent of GCP and the rest of Google

marcan_42 5y ago
GCP is not separate from Google's core infrastructure; rather, it's built on top of it. That means that while you can certainly have GCP specific outages, this kind of core infra "everything is down" situation is almost guaranteed to hit everything, GCP and not included. A lot of GCP sub-products are productionizations of existing Google tech; e.g. BigQuery is a public version of Dremel, an internal database/query engine they'd been using internally for a while. I'm pretty sure YouTube hasn't had their own infra in quite a while. When I was there ~8 years ago I think it was all integrated already. Certainly database, video processing, storage, CDN were all on core Google infra, and I'm sure the frontends were too though I don't remember looking into that explicitly.
- ec109685 5y ago
  There aren’t 100k Googlers developing on top off GCP services to get their job done on a daily basis. That’s the big difference between the two clouds level of dog fooding.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    > There aren’t 100k Googlers developing on top off GCP services to get their job done on a daily basis. Doing something on top of GCP rather than the normal way at Google was a huge pain. Borg tutorials and documentation were just far superior, I could get a thing running on borg in an hour from not knowing anything about borg, I spent a week trying to get something running internally on GCP but still couldn't get it right (our team wanted to see if we could run things on GCP so I was tasked with testing it, I couldn't find anyone who knew how to do it so we just gave up after I didn't make any real progress). That was the worst documented thing I've ever worked with. And even worse the internal GCP pages were probably running in california and probably weren't tested from Europe, so the page took like 2 seconds between mouse click and it responded to anything. That was years ago though and I no longer work there, but at least back then the work to make using GCP internally seamless wasn't done. Maybe it is simpler if you run everything in it and don't need it play well with borg, but there is a reason why it isn't popular internally. And likely you wont find many engineers who left Google who recommend you will use it, since they probably didn't test it and if they did it probably was a bad experience (unless they worked on GCP).
WoahNoun 5y ago
>GCP was not a productization of their existing infrastructure Neither was AWS.

geoduck14 5y ago

AWS, of course