Cloud Spanner now with a free trial
cloud.google.com
cloud.google.com
Was really hoping for something that could scale to zero. Better than no change!
Stuff like the free VM is perpetually which to my knowledge has not equivalent aws freebie
[1] https://twitter.com/kelseyhightower/status/15704512806651494...
If anyone wants to try out Spanner without cost, this is a great option. There's also a pretty cool starting experience in terms of in-console tutorial to set up a sample app on Spanner.
I'd love to get feedback on getting started with Spanner.
Disclaimer: as my username suggest, I work at Google, quite closely with the Cloud Spanner team.
In general Ive had pretty ridiculous trouble with GCloud reps pushing their practices and mindesets on me, across several large contracts and companies. Your team dearly needs to work on basic communication. As Sundar has said publicly, Google as a whole needs to earn back user trust. As a corporate GCloud user (not my choice), you have obliterated it time and time again, and these sorts of fake free announcements really don’t help your case.
Then you've got a google proprietary API for what should be similar to Aurora with PostgreSQL wire compatibility.
Add in Google's history of deprecating and non-backwards compatible changes to SDKs.
That makes you wonder, who exactly Spanner IS geared towards.
Many companies have the uptime requirements, a decent number have the performance requirements, and it's all going in one direction. There are a lot of things Google need and then all of a sudden 10 years later lots of others need them too.
I wish Spanner had both a fully free tier and was fully managed like Firestore.
If GCP was smart they would make it free for life, then one in every 3000 customers would blow up and they could charge Oracle prices.
Especially with my understanding that a lot of GCP leadership is ex-Oracle, the whole vibe of Spanner seems to be a run at Oracle's marketshare.
And when it grows, you don't bother migration unless what you're using currently can't scale.
don't give them any ideas..
If cost isn’t an issue my experience is that spanner is the best, problem is there’s no way to know this without paying a lot
That's Google's mistake tho - if they had had a totally free option when they started, students would have built pet projects on it, and now they'd have a whole ecosystem of companies giving hundreds of millions of revenue for it.
They should have offered a totally free version (at a loss), knowing that in the future they could do the engineering work to make it cheap for them to run.
For example, stick 10,000 users into the same spanner database with some frontend to check no user can access rows owned by another. Then, when a user gets large and wants to pay for dedicated spanner, migrate them out of the shared instance.
[edit] I'm apparently wrong.
This is still a masterclass in how not to do a pricing page IMO.
I have no idea why they chose to structure the pricing model this way, but it makes the entry-level cost look a lot worse than it really is.
In a PG or similar architecture, node might be used to specify how many "nodes" are in a replicated setup for high availability purposes.
In Spanner, "Node" is a measure of compute capacity (as is the finer-grain processing units) allowing you to scale up/down without impacting an application's workload.
All instances get high availability regardless of number of nodes or processing units, and the specifics of this are handled by the configuration.
For Spanner vs Postgres, you can indeed just query Protobuf in Postgres: https://github.com/mpartel/postgres-protobuf
Echoing other people, limiting it to 90 days / 10GB is an odd choice – if you need Spanner, you’re likely to bump into both of those limitations, especially if you’re not already a GCP user. Databases are a critical service and it takes time to evaluate one.
That’s the point: if you need spanner, Google wants your money.
This is intended as a way for people to play around with it free of charge, in the hopes that they will realize they need it.
What I wish they had was a cap: allow me to tell the accountants that I can guarantee that a developer’s training will not leave the free tier.
I guess I will say that I don't actually think that this is all that useful, personally, but I can see it as coming in handy in a very specific scenario.
One of the biggest issues I’ve had with anything similar is that they’re “cloud only” and hence “online only”.
Both have a PostgreSQL compatibility layer...
Spanner has a very different implementation: your dataset is split into (possibly a large number of) shards, each of which is replicated across multiple regions. So you get better global availability and scalability, at the cost of more complicated performance characteristics when you have to do operations that involve multiple shards.
Spanner is a very different database. They've included a PostgreSQL query-language compatibility layer, but that isn't the same as being "100% compatible." You'll still be dealing with some Spanner concepts like not wanting to hot-spot your writes. Spanner does allow really scaling out and a truly distributed database while AlloyDB is an improvement via better integration with Google's infrastructure, but still mostly the same model.
Aurora/Alloy do have advantages by decoupling the storage from the server instances including performance and resiliency, but Spanner is really creating a horizontally scalable, distributed database - with some trade-offs.
We won’t ever use a google product at my work because they burned me personally on that. Hope they like stepping over those dollars to pick up those pennies.