I think so. I'm a GCP user and I'm afraid of hosting workloads there now. I've heard too many nightmare stories, and I thought Google would be proper and thus not be infested with these kind of problems that cheaper providers are known for.
Maybe AWS is the only player in town now? I don't know. Google doesn't instill confidence with these incidents, same with those cases of insurmountable bills caused by simple mistakes where there should be a way for smaller customers to cap usage.
> I thought Google would be proper and thus not be infested with these kind of problems that cheaper providers are known for.
These sorts of things have happened before with Google and the other expensive providers.
Are cheaper providers known for doing this? I would have thought they would be less lively to, as they are smaller and therefore every customer is relatively more important to them, and they are therefore more likely to check before turning services off.
> Are cheaper providers known for doing this? I would have thought they would be less lively to, as they are smaller and therefore every customer is relatively more important to them, and they are therefore more likely to check before turning services off.
In my experience, the reason they're cheaper is because they offer fewer features (cut down on ongoing expenses) and because they aggressively enforce TOS (the margins are thinner, so you're less able to afford people using more resources than allocated).
The very cheapest are on thin margins, so that seems to be as expected, but there are a lot of providers between the very cheapest and the high prices charged by the hyperscalers. Pricing somewhere in between and offering some actual customer service?
Would you be okay with GCP making public issues you encounter with your account?
if it's some automated behavior, yes. I'd like to know what it is, why it exists, how it works (how to avoid triggering it) and what they're doing to make sure it never happens again
Well, I would host workloads on GCP... provided I could easily move them elsewhere and I just treat them as disposable.
What about Azure?
Azure is a toy platform, not a real cloud. Too many changes, far from being reliable.
Unless imposed by employer to use, run a mile.
I'd rather go back to bare metal than use Azure.
Do you care about uptime and security?
https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/
But then they have alot more services since msft bought them, making higher chances on goes down
https://isolveproblems.substack.com/p/how-microsoft-vaporize...
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47616242
Honestly the best counterattack Iran could make rn would be somehow convincing the Pentagon to move everything to Azure
Your statement was one of those that made me chuckle because it started as a joke...and then reality set in the more i thought about it, and then it made me feel sad, nervous, etc.
I would rather raise goats, than use Azure.