News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by andrewguenther on Friday July 23, 2021 @01:41PM (#27933495)
AWS Egress - $0.09/GB

Azure Egress - $0.0875/GB

GCP Egress - $0.11/GB

Alibaba Egress - $0.123

Interesting that no mention is made of the other cloud providers pricing here when AWS isn't even the most expensive egress...Oh! I wonder if it is because Cloudflare has data transfer agreements with GCP, Azure, and Alibaba! But that would mean this is a shoddy hit piece to strong arm AWS into an agreement with them. Nonsense, I'm sure Cloudflare would never do that...

Edit: I've removed claims about Cloudfront's pricing since it isn't actually clear what they charge for egress and seems to vary on a number of factors. Thanks Dylan16807 for pointing that out.

Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by corlinp on Friday July 23, 2021 @05:06PM (#27935636)
I took the article as pointing out that they specifically do not charge AWS for data transfer to CloudFlare and yet AWS charges full-price for bandwidth while other clouds do not. That's not a shoddy hit-piece, it's exposing some predatory business practices. Of course it'll benefit CloudFlare, but that doesn't mean it's a disingenuous article.
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by christophilus on Friday July 23, 2021 @07:28PM (#27936852)
Digital Ocean: 0.01/GB

Netcup: basically free (40TB is baked into the VPS price)

I think it’s safe to say that all of the major providers egregiously overcharge for bandwidth.

Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by Rd6n6 on Friday July 23, 2021 @11:21PM (#27938127)
I’ve never heard of Netcup. How are they compared to say DO?
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by fireant on Friday July 23, 2021 @02:07PM (#27933812)
The link you have submitted is about Workers however, which is a Cloudflare's function-as-a-service solution. I could not find egress pricing for general bandwidth that does not go through Workers last time I tried. Could you please point me to a document that says CF general egress pricing is $0.045 now?
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by andrewguenther on Friday July 23, 2021 @02:14PM (#27933896)
The original version of my post called out that you cannot actually see Cloudflare's pricing without an account, that link was the best I could find. Funny to be calling out their competitors for pricing when they won't even publish theirs...
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by Dylan16807 on Friday July 23, 2021 @02:53PM (#27934320)
https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers/platform/pricing

Edit: I was quoting a 100MB per request limit but that's actually ingress, egress is 512MB/unlimited so if you calculate that out it would be an even smaller fraction of a penny per terabyte for bundled workers.

Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by NicoJuicy on Friday July 23, 2021 @08:26PM (#27937310)
Cloudflare doesn't do pricing for bandwidth, as far as I know.

https://www.quora.com/How-can-Cloudflare-not-charge-for-band...

Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by Wallacy on Saturday July 24, 2021 @11:13AM (#27941601)
In this case is because they actually does not charge bandwidth. I have few services on CF and never paid a dime for bandwidth. Even on free plan I push few terabytes.
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by Dylan16807 on Friday July 23, 2021 @02:39PM (#27934175)
What are you on about? A big chunk of the article is about the bandwidth alliance, and your number for Cloudflare is not egress.

Edit: And in particular, if you are using normal cloudflare workers, not the "workers unbound" that are "intended for applications that need long execution times", then the price is $0.50 per million requests and $0 for bandwidth.

Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by andrewguenther on Friday July 23, 2021 @03:38PM (#27934754)
Thanks for pointing this out, I've gone ahead and removed mentions of Cloudflare's pricing from my comment since I can't find an authoritative source for their egress pricing in their docs. The point general point still stands, all cloud provider egress costs suck and Cloudflare is just trying to strongarm AWS into entering a bandwidth agreement with them.
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by Dylan16807 on Friday July 23, 2021 @03:43PM (#27934814)
Honestly I'd love it even if AWS just joined into the bandwidth alliance. Then I could store backups in glacier but have several options to retrieve it at a reasonable price.
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by NicoJuicy on Friday July 23, 2021 @08:21PM (#27937270)
No it doesn't. Since the article mentions that Amazon is charging egress pricing for egress data that doesn't go though the public internet, which is much cheaper and isn't egress in the first place.

Except at Amazon/AWS ofc.

Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by xtracto on Friday July 23, 2021 @01:55PM (#27933672)
Oracle cloud egress goes from $0.0085 USD to $0.025 USD (depending on the zone) and the first 10 TB are free.

It's quite good; too bad their cloud services are quite bad.

Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by art-vandelay on Friday July 23, 2021 @02:22PM (#27933995)
Bad in what sense? Curious because I just signed up for OCI a few hours ago.
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by xtracto on Friday July 23, 2021 @11:54PM (#27938264)
It's rough all around the edges:

- Want to mount HD Volumes? You've got to copy/paste a bunch of commands as an additional step after attaching it. This, in addition to the mkfs.xyz and all the normal linux stuff

- You thought AWS pricing was opaque? OCI implemented something called OCPU each of which gives 2 cores, but you've got to go to their 'cost simulator' page to make sense, and even then, there are some of their machine types that are not in the cost calculator

- They offer ARM cpus with their proprietary Oracle Linux... but once in, if you try to install the "oracle arm development toolchain" using their own tutorials, commands and sources, it doesn't work.

- To get into a "pay as you go" plan after your trial finishes you have to dance around in 4 or 5 video/calls with one of their "representatives" so that they move you to "PayPal" payment (for some reason they don't accept cards directly but only Paypal)

- Once I was "moved" to the pay-as-you-go, my Billing chart UI just broke, and suddenly I don't have a way to see how much I am spending (empty charts).

- The "performance levels" of block storage is also weird... and just now they released "ultra high performance", but it cannot be used by any machine, and you also need to do some additional crap to make it work.

- The login is strange.. at some point trying to login, I ended up in some strange Oracle screen that had nothing to do with OCI.

- The "Wordpress appliance" (whatever they call it) that they place at the very front of the screen after you login doesn't work: The admim user/password you enter when setting it up does not work. This one made me laugh... so bad.

And so on, and so forth. There's a lot of other papercuts that we've had while trying it.

If you want to create a couple of instances it is OK, but the brokeness becomes old when you are trying to do something real.

Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by jaytaylor on Friday July 23, 2021 @02:44PM (#27934228)
My takeaway as a daily user of OCI and an AWS / GCP customer:

Oracle cloud has proven to be refreshingly nice and easy to work with and develop + manage services on.

AWS is fine but can be costly and has technical baggage.

The cluster mess that is GCP is by far the most frustrating. For starters, the UI is indefensibly terrible.

Curious to know what specific complaints or grievances about OCI folks have.

Disclaimer: I currently work at Oracle, but don't speak on behalf of the company in any capacity. This is all my personal opinion and honest experience. YMMV and that's okay!

p.s. The OCI "free-forever" VMs are pretty generous-

2x instances with 1GB ram, much higher network and compute performance compared to GCP free-tier.

Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by dougmoscrop on Friday July 23, 2021 @04:51PM (#27935493)
Honestly, looking at Oracle Cloud, I think the best thing they could do is spin off and just completely remove any trace of the name Oracle. You have some absolutely fantastic products that are being criminally neglected because people won't go anywhere near the name, and can you blame them?
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by ksec on Friday July 23, 2021 @06:17PM (#27936245)
I dont even think they need to Spin it off. They could reform it as subsidiary and have a different company name.
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by xtracto on Saturday July 24, 2021 @12:01AM (#27938296)
In a past company where I was, we were approached by OCI sales team wanting to move us from AWS (we had a partnership with Oracle in other products).

After doing some due diligence, I couldn't find a reason to move anything. I think Oracle has to find something that just excels in their cloud. Shit, even giving free outbound traffic forever would be a huge plus. Microsoft has their AI stack, Google has their Spanner and other propiertary services, AWS has "everything else". But if Oracle wants to really take clients from others, they ought to do something good. I don't think they can compete with the DigitalOcean/Linoe/Vultr class... So unless they have a "killer app" it will be complicated to find customers that want to go through all the hassle of migrating from an existing cloud solution.

Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by robertlagrant on Saturday July 24, 2021 @05:00AM (#27939342)
> Microsoft has their AI stack

TBH this is better on Google as well. MS has better corporate integration with IT teams that use MS internally.

Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by art-vandelay on Saturday July 24, 2021 @09:40PM (#27945915)
One advantage is that GraalVM Enterprise Edition is free to use on OCI infrastructure. I have yet to try it, but could be useful for a nice performance boost.
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by ithkuil on Friday July 23, 2021 @05:58PM (#27936091)
GCP has the worst UI, except for all the others
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by xtracto on Saturday July 24, 2021 @12:03AM (#27938306)
The last time I tried Google Cloud was to test some Serverless code, this was the outcome:

---

Just spent 2 hours trying to make some basic Google Cloud Services examples of Serverless to work, directly from the Serverless page to no avail. GCS was returning all kind of weird errors, including HTTP 500 ...

After that decided to move to use the AWS examples, and the first one I tried worked like a charm! Google has a long way to go to be at the level of AWS, right now the infrastructure seems crappy, if you cannot even run the most simple examples of a simple HTTP serverless function.

EDIT: Also, I would never use Google Cloud, fearing that if for some reason they decide to "block" my account, I would have no recourse. Their support is terrible as well.

Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by DangitBobby on Saturday July 24, 2021 @03:59AM (#27939159)
Weird, I use GCP (GCS extensively) pretty much exclusively for numerous different clients and can recall having 0 issues. I had to use AWS EKS recently and found the UX to be quite sub-par in the console compared to GCP. EKS is a nightmare compared to GKE as well.
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by xtracto on Saturday July 24, 2021 @08:57AM (#27940531)
Yes. EKS is a horrible piece of crap. I've tried it and ended up using ECS.
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by jamesvnz on Friday July 23, 2021 @07:34PM (#27936929)
Agreed... GCP isn't perfect by any means, but I find it much better than AWS, and miles better than Azure.
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by dilyevsky on Friday July 23, 2021 @11:44PM (#27938230)
Aws ui is old school and has clunky ux but is very snappy even on underpowered hw. GCP is a bloated mess. Takes 30-60s to load every page on my personal mac air with a 1gpbs link. And doesn’t work well in safari
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by mnahkies on Saturday July 24, 2021 @04:23AM (#27939241)
It's fixed now, but for a while I had to open the gcp pubsub part of the console in chrome rather than Firefox because it would just completely fail to load.

The cynical part of me was thinking that this is a good way to increase browser market share, but more likely an honest mistake.

Overall I find the gcp console and gcloud cli very user-friendly compared to aws though

Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by partiallypro on Friday July 23, 2021 @04:38PM (#27935351)
I don't know about GCP but Azure's egress costs go down as you use more and more dropping as low as .05/GB, and if you are using Cloudflare on top of it the costs go down even more. Then don't forget ingress fees, Azure charges nothing, while AWS charges ~.015/GB in. Since a lot of protocols rely on heavy ingress as well that starts to add up. AWS is notoriously expensive in bandwidth costs, that's nothing new.
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by MisterPea on Friday July 23, 2021 @03:11PM (#27934468)
/thread

Thanks for this.

I was trying to find a simple comparison of pricing on the article but only found an overly simple water analogy.

Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by neop1x on Saturday July 24, 2021 @06:26AM (#27939692)
Yes, most people think about Azure/GCP/AWS/Alibaba only. But there are many others, smaller and bigger providers. For example:

Scaleway (small, in Europe) is like DO: Egress cost is part of the instance price

Oracle cloud: Egress cost depends on the monthly usage and and the destination country (free of charge up into $0.050 USD per GB per month) [1]

Egress shouldn't be as expensive as it is in major clouds.

[1] https://www.oracle.com/cloud/networking/networking-pricing.h...

Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by NicoJuicy on Friday July 23, 2021 @08:18PM (#27937248)
The article is about egress data that doesn't go over the public internet, which is much cheaper.

Other cloud companies don't use the same price for that, while Amazon does. With an markup...

Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by chaz6 on Saturday July 24, 2021 @06:29AM (#27939711)
On that basis, I am saving $90,000 a year by having a dedicated server from Hetzner (running a Tor relay). If I could afford that, I would pay off my mortgage in a couple of years.
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by laurencerowe on Friday July 23, 2021 @05:41PM (#27935936)
If you're doing a lot of egress look into AWS Direct Connect (I think GCP has an equivalent too.) That gets you down to $0.02/GB
Re:AWS's Egregious Egress by 0xy on Friday July 23, 2021 @09:55PM (#27937772)
Cloudflare does multiple petabytes of traffic on their enterprise plan for ~$10k/m.

Disclosure: $NET shareholder