Dies2much said:
“There are few honest differences. It comes down to look and feel mostly. AWS services have more polish to them, and some are assembled for you so you have fewer steps to take to get going. Sometimes this can be a bad thing though, and you end up doing the assembly yourself anyway. To use a car analogy, Google is like a car parts store with every kind of part you need, AWS is like a shop that sells finished engines.
If you can be OK with the setups the AWS guys did, it can be great. If you hit a problem with something in their setup, then you are going to spend the same time and effort to build it like you would in Google.”
igloo_builder said:
“I do not have a lot of experience with AWS. But I have been working with Google Compute Engine pretty closely for about 9 months. I like it a lot.
“Here are some things I learned about GCP over the past year”.
The Good
Everything in GCP runs on a container even the VMs. VMs startup really fast. Source
GCP’s load balancers are run on dedicated network hardware. Unlike Amazon where I think it runs on a VM. Source
They have per minute billing, sustained use discounts and committed use discounts. Source
Autoscaling instance groups allow you to create container like infrastructure with VMs if your not ready for containers yet. Source
Subjective, everything seems faster and really well thought out compared to Azure and AWS during our comparison. Also I’m really glad they renamed Network Projects to VPCs.
GCP seems to be focusing more on enterprise features this year like better management of IAM and Projects by introducing Folders which is good for bigger companies wanting to adopt. Source
GCP has kicked it up a notch with their Terraform provider since HashiCorp split up the providers from the main code base. Lots of good additions so far and way more to come.
The bad
Good luck getting your lawyers to sign off on GCP for production use. One main sticking point for our lawyers is in Googles contract they reserve the right to discontinue any product. Google won’t bend on that wording. They are now dealing with larger enterprise customers who can’t move services on a whim. I don’t know how Home Depot got their lawyers to sign off on that. Section 7.1 Source
GCP internal load balancers can only serve traffic within the Project. Meaning you can’t use the internal load balancer for internal corporate consumption without using something like HAproxy or Nginx. Source
There is no NFS as a service functionality. With google Persistent Disks you can only have 1 mount as read/write and the rest can only be mounted with read. So moving enterprise applications that require NFS won’t happen. You could try GCS Fuse but not sure how well that works. Source
When GCP introduces new products and features they go into Alpha then Beta and finally GA. Depending on how your using GCP you might not be able to use a really important feature until it’s GA’ed. Source
Integrations with GCP will always be second or third priority compared to developing integrations with AWS and Azure. It makes sense GCP is the third most popular cloud but it still sucks since integrations with tools like Google Storage Buckets can save a lot of time/complexity.”
Leave a Reply