AWS is basically "run your entire company's engineering as a service" now, and they've done a good job at it. It's not at all easy to compete with such an integrated and battle-tested platform (other than on cost; AWS can be pretty expensive).
You definitely don't want to run your RDBMS on Kubernetes, and while DO's "Marketplace" has a solution, it's not the same.
If you’re targeting AWS you’re probably better off using their solution, but you can totally run your database on k8s. And for some uses it’s even a good idea.
I've been doing this for a while. Before there were statefulsets, it was pretty painful. But now, it's relatively easy. Sure, not as easy as a PaaS database that seems to just work, but much easier than managing a cluster of servers with all sorts of crazy scripts.
Google Cloud has a ton of built-in support and UI for Kubernetes clusters. They make it really nice. It's roughly the same price, so I'm not sure I'd run Kubernetes on any other service.
Nope, wish I had time to devote to such a comparison. Would love to see an article.
* Access control for everything via IAM. This for me is the killer feature for AWS, almost anything from users, to servers, to individual IoT devices can be granted permission to access other AWS resources with extreme granularity.
* Audit logging of every single API call, user invoked or otherwise, via Cloudtrail.
* Monitoring of and responding to key metrics via Cloudwatch. This isn’t just graphs as it can appear on the surface, Cloudwatch alarms allow you to do things like killing individual servers if they start throwing errors while others aren’t.
* Responding to changes in your infrastructure via Cloudtrail. We’re using this for features ranging from emailing our security team when a new IAM user is provisioned, through to full release orchestration.
* All those features supported across services that can fulfil more or less any requirement you have, whether that’s a MySQL database, a message queue, or (should you really need it) a satellite downlink.
DO are fine if what you want really is just a server in a data centre somewhere, but you’re missing out on a lot of really powerful management features with them, without even getting into the other services AWS have.
At that scale the UI of the console really doesn't matter, everything is IAC so developers rarely need to directly access AWS. The one thing we do use is the Cost and Usage explorer which has a reasonable UI
Okay, but those "rare" times when you do need to access the infrastructure, having good UI is pretty helpful.
There is nothing to be discussed here. If you compare do with azure, google and aws and are talking about the interface being most important: you clearly are not the enterprisish client aws/azure/google is aiming for.
That might be unique to you, I've been using google and I've very much enjoyed the experience, why doesn't it work for you?
Ther is also a common believe that they will just drop support for something whenever they feel like it - which in regards to GCP could be unwarranted but well it is what it is. I would pick AWS first, Azure is becoming a close second and GCPa distant third. I think Digital Ocean looks awesome and might be worth a look before GCP.
Also, GCP is having stability issues recently.
Never underestimate the power of good aesthetics and design.
AWS is fast food and expensive because consistency, availability, and volume are what count in the cloud business. You can get better quality VMs for less money but you won’t be able to provision thousands easily and it’s not going to be available 24/7.
McDonald's isn't impressive because they can make a Big Mac in 30 seconds. They're impressive because I can get almost the exact same Big Mac anywhere in the world.