Hacker News Reader

Comment by tpetry | Hacker News Reader

What? A 73$ price difference to AWS was their main selling point?

It depends entirely on how a firm has their infrastructure set up - if you have small cluster(s) per client for isolation/compliance purposes, you end up with, for example with 250 clients, each one using, say, 1000 billable hours/month:

250 * 0.1 * 1000 = $25,000/month.

This is quite the price hike for something that was a) free until now. b) Not a service that warrants such a fee given that it uses existing (GCE) resources and can frankly be done manually by one of the DevOps engineers for a few hours/month and some scripting. It's just a charge for convenience it seems.

You keep noting how "easy" it is to provision and manage a Kubernetes cluster. From experience, properly securing and maintaining a Kubernetes cluster is a multi-person full-time job.

We already do provision clusters, using the aforementioned tools. There is some setup involved, but once done, provisioning and upgrade is relatively simple. Indeed, we used to exclusively provision and upgrade via Terraform/Ansible. When we started using GCP, any data that could be stored by a US company without causing compliance issues was offloaded to GCP over other providers due to the auto provisioning/management at no cost.

If you guys find it hard to maintain/upgrade clusters, that's your business. All I am saying is that as a company giving you business, with this change, you are now no longer the cheapest, most reliable or most convenient. As a result, we will be moving to provision instances with other providers from now on.

No, the $73 was a selling point of GCP. You could easily spin up different clusters at no additional costs (at least for the cluster itself).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com