2 ms·
1) GCP/AWS/Azure etc all do a lot of things. Hundreds of services each? It's tricky to build out a good UX that exposes everything they do; and different custom
by scarmig 4y ago
1) GCP/AWS/Azure etc all do a lot of things. Hundreds of services each? It's tricky to build out a good UX that exposes everything they do; and different customers all have very different workflows.
2) For awhile Google wanted to move more new development onto GCP (an effort called "Google on Google"), but it had limited traction and has been abandoned AFAIK, because internal tooling, infrastructure, and devex was just so much better than what GCP had to offer.
- no_wizard 4y ago1) is a platform problem though and honestly I don’t think it’s that complex to be able to explain in plan English what your services do and who on a high level should use them. It’s Byzantine on purpose I feel like. 2) feels like this just proves my point
- shadowgovt 4y agoGoogle on Google basically died as a result of a specific attack. A group of malicious actors over the holiday season attempted to compromise all of Tor by running a truly massive number of GCP nodes to succeed in a majority-control attack. Site reliability discovered how positively primitive the tooling was to mitigate such an attack... Not only was the GCP tooling not ready for prime time on an attack of that scale, but they were not able to use the regular tooling that they were accustomed to because GCP instances were encrypted for user privacy reasons. And one of the things that sets Google apart in terms of its corporate design is that site reliability has the leadership authority to tell management all the way up the chain "no."
- ericbarrett 4y agoFascinating (and believable). Is there a write-up of this anywhere? Can't find anything with a search.