4 ms·

Does anyone know why bandwidth costs for both AWS and Google have remained flat while storage has rapidly approached .01 cents a gb? Do they have fixed costs o

Does anyone know why bandwidth costs for both AWS and Google have remained flat while storage has rapidly approached .01 cents a gb? Do they have fixed costs or is this one of the last ways they have to to make money on their platforms?

vgt 11y ago
(disclosure: am work for Google). Not sure on AWS. Google's Network is a vast, secure, and performant Global SDN. This allows us to do some cool things. Therefore, Google has a fundamentally unique value proposition: - Traffic between zones/regions at Google never leaves Google Network. Therefore, no need to setup VPC or VPN between zones/regions. Makes deployments much much simpler. - Google Compute Engine is a VPC out of the box, even cross-region. You can carve out your own sub-VPCs easily using firewall rules. - Traffic from Google to end-user is not being dumped off of Google network as soon as possible. Google carries your traffic as close to the end-user as possible. Edit: take a look at this as well.. http://googlecloudplatform.blogspot.com/2015/06/A-Look-Inside-Googles-Data-Center-Networks.html http://googlecloudplatform.blogspot.com/2015/06/A-Look-Insid...
- boundlessdreamz 11y ago
  But you are much more expensive than S3 & CloudFront when it comes to request pricing Cloud Storage considers retrieving an object through its HTTP url is considered a class B XML request type which is priced at $0.01/10,000 ops. This is 1.3x-2.5x more expensive than cloudfront and s3 respectively. This is also not well documented and caused me some trouble. I didn't expect HTTP GET requests to be counted as XML API requests.
  - skystorm 11y ago
    What did you expect GET requests to be counted as then? As an aside, I think it's fairly well documented: https://cloud.google.com/storage/pricing#operations-pricing https://cloud.google.com/storage/pricing#operations-pricing (lists "GET Object" under class B) [but disclosure: I work for Google]
    - boundlessdreamz 11y ago
      It did not occur to me that HTTP GET will be considered as an XML API operation. So I didn't expect HTTP GET requests to be charged because everywhere I read (including that page you listed) the pricing is for XML API operation. That + it being more expensive than cloudfront and s3 came as a rude shock :( In general I find google cloud documentation and the service much better and more pleasant to work with than AWS but in this case it is not. Both S3 and Cloudfront have much clearer pricing (and positioning). In network pricing, both S3 & Cloudfront are significantly cheaper
      - vgt 11y ago
        Per my parent comment, comparing AWS networking functionality to Google's is Apples-to-Oranges.
- pa7ch 11y ago
  "SSL added and removed here! :¬)"
  - vgt 11y ago
    http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/googlers-say-f-you-to-nsa-company-encrypts-internal-network/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/google...
edutechnion 11y ago
From 2014-11: “Networking is a red alert situation for us right now,” explained Hamilton. “The cost of networking is escalating relative to the cost of all other equipment. It is Anti-Moore. All of our gear is going down in cost, and we are dropping prices, and networking is going the wrong way. That is a super-big problem, and I like to look out a few years, and I am seeing that the size of the networking problem is getting worse constantly. At the same time that networking is going Anti-Moore, the ratio of networking to compute is going up.” http://www.enterprisetech.com/2014/11/14/rare-peek-massive-scale-aws/ http://www.enterprisetech.com/2014/11/14/rare-peek-massive-s...
- trhway 11y ago
  it i kind of topologically clear - with linear growth of the number of nodes, the fabric network architectures have to grow more than linear (and you have to have fabric if you'd like to have performance growing linear with number of nodes - otherwise there wouldn't be any sense in adding nodes after some point)

vgt 11y ago

(disclosure: am work for Google). Not sure on AWS. Google's Network is a vast, secure, and performant Global SDN. This allows us to do some cool things. Therefore, Google has a fundamentally unique value proposition: - Traffic between zones/regions at Google never leaves Google Network. Therefore, no need to setup VPC or VPN between zones/regions. Makes deployments much much simpler. - Google Compute Engine is a VPC out of the box, even cross-region. You can carve out your own sub-VPCs easily using firewall rules. - Traffic from Google to end-user is not being dumped off of Google network as soon as possible. Google carries your traffic as close to the end-user as possible. Edit: take a look at this as well.. http://googlecloudplatform.blogspot.com/2015/06/A-Look-Inside-Googles-Data-Center-Networks.html http://googlecloudplatform.blogspot.com/2015/06/A-Look-Insid...

boundlessdreamz 11y ago
But you are much more expensive than S3 & CloudFront when it comes to request pricing Cloud Storage considers retrieving an object through its HTTP url is considered a class B XML request type which is priced at $0.01/10,000 ops. This is 1.3x-2.5x more expensive than cloudfront and s3 respectively. This is also not well documented and caused me some trouble. I didn't expect HTTP GET requests to be counted as XML API requests.
- skystorm 11y ago
  What did you expect GET requests to be counted as then? As an aside, I think it's fairly well documented: https://cloud.google.com/storage/pricing#operations-pricing https://cloud.google.com/storage/pricing#operations-pricing (lists "GET Object" under class B) [but disclosure: I work for Google]
  - boundlessdreamz 11y ago
    It did not occur to me that HTTP GET will be considered as an XML API operation. So I didn't expect HTTP GET requests to be charged because everywhere I read (including that page you listed) the pricing is for XML API operation. That + it being more expensive than cloudfront and s3 came as a rude shock :( In general I find google cloud documentation and the service much better and more pleasant to work with than AWS but in this case it is not. Both S3 and Cloudfront have much clearer pricing (and positioning). In network pricing, both S3 & Cloudfront are significantly cheaper
    - vgt 11y ago
      Per my parent comment, comparing AWS networking functionality to Google's is Apples-to-Oranges.
pa7ch 11y ago
"SSL added and removed here! :¬)"
- vgt 11y ago
  http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/googlers-say-f-you-to-nsa-company-encrypts-internal-network/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/google...

edutechnion 11y ago

From 2014-11: “Networking is a red alert situation for us right now,” explained Hamilton. “The cost of networking is escalating relative to the cost of all other equipment. It is Anti-Moore. All of our gear is going down in cost, and we are dropping prices, and networking is going the wrong way. That is a super-big problem, and I like to look out a few years, and I am seeing that the size of the networking problem is getting worse constantly. At the same time that networking is going Anti-Moore, the ratio of networking to compute is going up.” http://www.enterprisetech.com/2014/11/14/rare-peek-massive-scale-aws/ http://www.enterprisetech.com/2014/11/14/rare-peek-massive-s...

trhway 11y ago
it i kind of topologically clear - with linear growth of the number of nodes, the fabric network architectures have to grow more than linear (and you have to have fabric if you'd like to have performance growing linear with number of nodes - otherwise there wouldn't be any sense in adding nodes after some point)