[HN Gopher] 2022 Cloud Report
___________________________________________________________________
2022 Cloud Report
Author : estambar
Score : 241 points
Date : 2022-06-16 13:25 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cockroachlabs.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cockroachlabs.com)
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Am I misreading the report or is GCP faster for network/disk,
| have more consistent performance (at least for network), & offer
| cheaper pricing? Aside from vendor lock-in (or potentially
| negotiated rates for large ENT accounts altering the economics),
| is there any reason to choose AWS/Azure instead of GCP?
| sharms wrote:
| Each cloud comes with unique service / API complexity and
| despite being managed services that experience does not
| translate 1:1 across clouds. For example AWS IAM policies
| cannot be reused, and there may be differences in availability,
| durability, feature set et al. A good reason to choose AWS may
| be to minimize deltas between stacks, and often it is a fair
| assumption that their service offerings have been used by a
| significant amount of enterprises.
| bjornsing wrote:
| How about ARM? Included in the report?
| asdajksah2123 wrote:
| guepe wrote:
| There is very little offering and honestly afaik they are not
| competing on performance except niche applications.
|
| It's not that easy to displace x86...
| StillBored wrote:
| I'm not sure that is accurate for Gravaton3, which appears to
| be besting intel/amd in a number of cases. So, it doesn't
| appear there is a clear leader between the amd, intel and
| gravaton instances. Meaning everyone should be benchmarking
| their application and picking one.
|
| https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=graviton.
| ..
|
| Amazon here seems to be leading the Arm technology pack, as
| they are using a newer generation of CPU, while arm instances
| on other providers tend to be providing gravaton2
| (Neoverse-N1) based instances. I would imagine that gradually
| changing in the near future as those vendors also upgrade.
| canucklady wrote:
| Graviton3 on AWS is better for most applications on a
| cost/performance basis, and in some cases also on straight
| latency.
|
| Honeycomb has some great blogs about it:
| https://www.honeycomb.io/blog/present-future-arm-aws-
| gravito...
| guepe wrote:
| I stand corrected ! Note that is on cost/performance, not
| raw performance yet. Impressive.
| coder543 wrote:
| And on raw performance: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php
| ?page=article&item=graviton... (direct link to the
| geometric mean performance of the whole test suite)
|
| ARM isn't the optimal solution for every application at
| this time, but anyone who isn't seriously considering it
| probably needs to update their information.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| As far as I know most AWS services can be run on graviton
| instances.
| lallysingh wrote:
| The big savings on graviton come from no hyperthreading. A
| VCPU on x86 is a hypercore, but a VCPU on graviton is a full
| core. So you get a full core and its L1 and L2 all to
| yourself. Usually for cheaper than an x86 VCPU.
| matdehaast wrote:
| Last I checked cockroach don't support ARM binaries. Probably
| means they thought not worth the effort to do the analysis on
| those instances as it doesn't help for their offering
| Thaxll wrote:
| It does supports ARM. It's a Go project so it should except
| if they do exotic things.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| I work on a similar product to cockroach. We inject
| assembly into our code, wouldn't be surprised if they do
| too.
| _joel wrote:
| Explained why they don't produce official, supported
| builds.
|
| https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/issues/62903#issue
| c...
| estambar wrote:
| We're planning on having official ARM binaries in the
| fall, so I expect ARM benchmarks will return in next
| year's report
| lbhdc wrote:
| From the pdf of the report
|
| >We chose not to test ARM instance types this year as
| CockroachDB still does not provide official binaries for that
| processor platform. Official support for ARM binaries is slated
| for our Fall release (22.2), so we expect to return to testing
| this processor platform next year.
| [deleted]
| yekurtal wrote:
| Direct download link:
| https://www.cockroachlabs.com/pdf/2022-cloud-report-cockroac...
| ghishadow wrote:
| thanks
| [deleted]
| hesdeadjim wrote:
| As a AMD fanboy who loves seeing them back on top, I'm just happy
| we have a competitive CPU market now. I'll include the M-series
| from Apple as well, despite being platform locked, because it
| also forces the other players to up their game.
|
| I would love to see an AMD chip as fully integrated as an M1,
| moving the RAM fully on die and part of the Infinity fabric
| directly. The insane memory bandwidth of the M1 is what keeps it
| competitive.
| WithinReason wrote:
| > I would love to see an AMD chip as fully integrated as an M1,
| moving the RAM fully on die and part of the Infinity fabric
| directly.
|
| Current rumours suggest that's where AMD is heading, Zen 5
| having multiple accelerators integrated and Zen 6 having HBM
| part of the package (on the datacenter variants):
|
| https://youtu.be/6yFn85I5PbY?t=1222
| bee_rider wrote:
| All this makes me wonder where the Crystalwell concept could
| have gone if Intel had really stuck it out.
| jeffbee wrote:
| The memory in an M1 is not "on die" it is plain old DRAM that
| they buy from the Koreans and solder to the board just like
| Intel and AMD and everyone else. DRAM is made on a
| fundamentally different semiconductor process and there will
| never, ever be a CPU with on-die DRAM. DRAM that can be made
| on a CPU logic process is called eDRAM. A huge eDRAM is a few
| tens of megabytes, while a huge DRAM is gigabytes. The bit
| cell density of eDRAM is slightly better than SRAM and 1000x
| lower than DRAM.
| WithinReason wrote:
| I should have said "on package", not "on chip".
| babypuncher wrote:
| I think the person you are responding too used the wrong
| vocabulary. Apple mounts the SoC and DRAM together in a
| system-in-a-package design, which is pretty different from
| how thin & light x86 manufacturers solder DRAM chips to the
| mainboard. The proximity between the SoC and DRAM is part
| of what makes the M1s bandwidth possible.
| jeffbee wrote:
| The DRAMs in an M1 system are not really any closer to
| the CPU than they are in competing ARM and x86 systems.
|
| https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-
| content/uploads/2020/09/tiger...
| erik wrote:
| The M1's bandwidth is possible because Apple uses high
| end LPDDR ram and a memory controller with a lot of
| channels. They aren't doing anything exotic.
|
| Consumer PCs don't match this bandwidth because DDR DIMMs
| generally aren't as fast as LPDDR. Plus AMD & Intel limit
| their mainstream consumer CPUs to two memory channels,
| both for cost savings and to segment the market.
| vitus wrote:
| > Consumer PCs don't match this bandwidth because DDR
| DIMMs generally aren't as fast as LPDDR.
|
| What about LPDDR (low-power DDR) allows it to be faster?
| And, by faster, do you mean lower latency? higher clock
| rates -> higher throughput? This is unintuitive to me.
|
| My impression is that lower power means that you can't
| sustain higher clocks as readily (in fact, when
| overclocking RAM, it's common to increase voltage in the
| interest of stability).
|
| I can't find anything about CAS latencies for LPDDR
| DIMMs.
|
| edit: to clarify: when overclocking RAM, your two options
| are either increase voltage or increase timings, as if
| you want to sustain higher speeds, you need to either
| charge your capacitors faster, or wait more cycles for
| them to be charged.
| erik wrote:
| > What about LPDDR (low-power DDR) allows it to be
| faster? And, by faster, do you mean lower latency? higher
| clock rates -> higher throughput? This is unintuitive to
| me.
|
| By faster I mean higher throughput at similar latency,
| achieved by higher clock rates. And it is indeed
| unintuitive as to how this can be done while using less
| power than standard DDR.
|
| My understanding is that it's down to two major factors:
|
| 1. JEDEC has iterated on the LPDDR standards much more
| rapidly. DDR4 and LPDDR3 both hit the market in 2012. But
| then LPDDR3e, LPDDR4, LPDDR4x, and LPDDR5 were all
| introduced before DDR5 was.
|
| 2. LPDDR isn't available on DIMMs, it's soldered only.
|
| So given that most laptops sold by companies like Dell
| and Lenovo use soldered ram anyway, and that Intel and
| AMD both support LPDDR, then why are PC laptops with
| faster RAM so rare? I have no idea, maybe it costs a bit
| more and the manufacturers don't think they can market it
| as a benefit?
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >As a AMD fanboy who loves seeing them back on top
|
| I am not a fanboy, but a realistic dude.
|
| AMD ruled the last years but Alder Lake overtook Vermeer on
| both performance and price/performance.
|
| And that is with a process node difference, Intel using 10nm vs
| AMD using 7nm.
|
| And the future looks like Intel will enhance the distance
| between its performance and AMD's.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Alder Lake and zen 3 are on comparable processes. Intel 10nm,
| now renamed Intel 7, has pretty much the same density as tsmc
| 7nm.
| FairlyInvolved wrote:
| And N7 is almost certainly cheaper (holistically) than
| Intel 7, from an economic perspective AMD have done more
| with less.
| viktorcode wrote:
| Take a note, that node sizes of different factories aren't
| comparable, because they are measured quite differently. You
| can only compare TSMC v TSMC, Intel v Intel etc.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| True, but Intel is still lagging at least one node behind
| TSMC, by whatever way you can measure.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Against apple and I believe amd's new offering this fall.
| Not amds last offering.
| [deleted]
| bloodyplonker22 wrote:
| if by "enhance the distance" you mean Intel will fall farther
| in terms of price and performance to AMD, you're probably
| right.
| coder543 wrote:
| I think Intel stands to regain some lost ground over the next
| year or two, but Alder Lake isn't a compelling argument in a
| datacenter-focused discussion.
|
| Alder Lake relies on brute force, inefficient power
| consumption to regain the performance crown. AMD's chips are
| much more efficient, and efficiency matters in datacenters.
| There is only so much power and cooling available to each
| rack unit.
|
| I think Sapphire Rapids holds a lot of promise, but it
| remains to be seen.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| You are right. But parent comment was about desktops, not
| data centers.
|
| And in desktops performance is what matters. And
| price/performance ratio, and both are in Intel's favor.
| coder543 wrote:
| This HN topic is about cloud, and I don't see anything in
| the comment you replied to that's talking about desktop
| computers specifically.
|
| Both Intel and AMD have plans to integrate memory more
| tightly onto the package of their datacenter processors
| in the next couple of years, IIRC, and that seems to be
| what the OP of this comment thread was hoping they would
| learn from M1.
|
| But, whatever.
| how2cflags wrote:
| As someone who has recently bought into AMD from a long hiatus,
| I have to say they've come a long way since and I've been
| personally impressed with what I've experienced so far on the
| hardware side. That said, the reverse can be equally said on
| other matters pertaining to their business as well; more
| specifically their customer support pertaining to RMA's as of
| late. Mind you, this is all a personal anecdote so take with a
| grain of sand.
| hanble wrote:
| Agreed, in it's heyday (before Intel dominated in PC era),
| AMD was my go-to for performance processors.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| _I would love to see an AMD chip as fully integrated as an M1,
| moving the RAM fully on die and part of the Infinity fabric
| directly. The insane memory bandwidth of the M1 is what keeps
| it competitive._
|
| I know this has been said a million times, but it's worth
| repeating because somehow the idea is still floating around -
| the M series very much does _not_ have the RAM on-die. It 's
| not even in the same package - it's standard LPDDR4/5 sitting
| off to the side with a lot of channels.
| ericmay wrote:
| Yes! How awesome is it that we've got companies like AMD,
| Intel, Nvidia, ARM, Apple + TSMC for M series, and others who
| are cranking out _awesome_ products?
|
| Sometimes we get lost in the criticism of every little thing
| that these companies do and forget that honestly, they're all
| cranking out great products.
| leoc wrote:
| Hopefully some serious competition and general normality will
| return to consumer discrete GPUs sometime soon, too.
| babypuncher wrote:
| GPU prices are already coming back to earth, thanks to both
| improved availability and the collapse of crypto mining.
| Geonode wrote:
| I don't know about competition, but I think we'll see
| prices bottom out below MSRP before the 4000 level cards
| come out in the next few months.
| danuker wrote:
| Do you think so, because the crypto craze is back in the
| crypt?
| vitus wrote:
| We're already close to that point. Low to mid-end AMD
| cards are already available at / below MSRP (e.g.
| 6600XT), and nVidia cards no longer command a > 2x
| premium across the board.
|
| At the height of the craze, I saw a five-year-old card,
| the GTX 1050 (not even Ti!), going for over 200.
|
| https://pcpartpicker.com/trends/price/video-card/
|
| From February: https://www.techradar.com/deals/looking-
| for-a-gpu-dont-buy-y...
| Geonode wrote:
| Yep, the secondhand market is getting flooded.
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| we need a fab competition as well. too many fabless like AMD,
| Apple...etc. deepened on TSMC
| babypuncher wrote:
| Intel is working on expanding their fab capacity and
| contracting it out like TSMC and Samsung.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| ASML deserves mentioning as well.
| BLanen wrote:
| No.
|
| Monopolies don't deserve credit.
| FairlyInvolved wrote:
| They hold a monopoly of merit, many tried EUV and they
| succeeded in doing something that others were calling
| impossible even 5 years before they shipped it, not by
| shutting down competition but simply because no one else
| could.
|
| The idea that ASML would somehow be more worthy of merit
| if Nikon/Canon also succeeded is weird.
|
| Would the moon landing me more impressive if Russia and
| Japan also managed it?
| jaywalk wrote:
| Exactly correct. They're literally _more_ deserving of
| credit because they 've done something that to this day
| nobody else has been able to do.
| thg wrote:
| Don't forget ZEISS
| jeffbee wrote:
| I wonder why they did not test the Amazon 6a class. The report
| gives the impression that Amazon lacks an implementation of the
| 3rd-gen EPYC.
| shaicoleman wrote:
| "Note: Because of our machine selection and testing cutoff
| times, we were unable to test AWS's m6a instances, which also
| run AMD's Milan processors. Based on the rest of our testing,
| we expect that the m6a instances could have outperformed m6i."
| lbhdc wrote:
| https://www.cockroachlabs.com/guides/thank-you/?pdf=/pdf/202...
|
| Here is the direct link to the report
| fckgw wrote:
| Even more direct :)
|
| https://www.cockroachlabs.com/pdf/2022-cloud-report-cockroac...
| smarx007 wrote:
| From p. 74:
|
| > Overall, the gap for most AMD-based processors closed almost
| immediately when we controlled for NUMA nodes - in other words,
| when we only considered runs where each instance showed all vCPUs
| running across a single NUMA node. When we did this, the
| performance gap dropped from 22% to 1%, which is smaller than our
| margin of error.
|
| How does one avoid machines with vCPUs across multiple NUMA
| nodes? Do you just spin the machine up, run `lscpu | grep 'NUMA
| node(s)'` and kill the machine if the value reported is anything
| but 1 and try to spin a VM again?
| estambar wrote:
| That's what we did, yes
| digb wrote:
| "we" meaning you are an author on the report, or just at your
| job?
| fizwhiz wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743182#31743198 :)
| estambar wrote:
| yes I was one of the authors of the report :)
| mekster wrote:
| Can we just go back to good old days and stop with animations to
| bring the content from all directions which is even slow enough I
| get blank screen for a few seconds as I scroll down which really
| reduces the readability.
| Thev00d00 wrote:
| It also ignores the "prefers-reduced-motion" CSS Media feature
| flag :(
| cronix wrote:
| Shouldn't the web browser be the one implementing css rules?
| jaywalk wrote:
| No. How is the web browser supposed to know how an
| "unanimated" animation is supposed to appear? Animations
| can be very complex, and there's simply no way that a
| browser could do this without breaking a lot of stuff.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Wonder how cockroach is doing these days with all the competition
| in the space.
| digb wrote:
| was discussing this the other day with colleagues. you google
| CockroachDB and are immediately served Yugabyte and
| PlanetScale, which are imo much "hotter" right now
| echelon wrote:
| I don't follow their product closely. Who are their
| competitors?
|
| (If I were in the market for their database and the
| alternatives were close in parity and price, I'd be likely to
| choose a competitor for the name not being "cockroach" alone.)
| sa46 wrote:
| Other globally consistent NewSQL DBs: Spanner, TiDB,
| Yugabyte, SingleStore
|
| Partitioning for existing DBs: Citus for Postgres and Vitess
| for MySQL.
|
| Snowflake apparently just started to target transactional
| workloads with UniStore.
| thisiswrongggg wrote:
| michaelmior wrote:
| I'm curious what it is about the name Cockroach that turns
| you off. I assume the name is intended to give the impression
| that the DB is hard to kill.
| estambar wrote:
| ^^THIS
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| Dear webmasters, for "simple" cookies settings windows like this,
| you should be tortured equally. https://ibb.co/dp89vYQ
|
| You are trying to "make" the users click "Allow all" just to hide
| this trash as quickly as possible. It is low.
| Narishma wrote:
| The whole website seems ill-conceived, with popups appearing
| above the graphs they're supposed to explain and obscuring
| them.
| [deleted]
| Linkd wrote:
| I read this as a strategic move. As their main goal is to get
| your name, company, title and email to download the report.
| So they were showing you snippets of interesting charts and
| then quickly covering it up.
| [deleted]
| aaa_aaa wrote:
| I guess they make the information on the site unusable to
| obtain your work e-mail for downloading the pdf.
| [deleted]
| nix23 wrote:
| cockroachlabs..... ;)
| capableweb wrote:
| It's not even low, but straight up breaking the regulations
| which made them put up that banner in the first place. But
| seems companies haven't yet understood that, nor have
| governments actually enforced anything so, here we are.
| orangepurple wrote:
| We need a browser extension to delete these stupid cookie
| consent popups
| [deleted]
| nazgul17 wrote:
| There is one: https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/
| krageon wrote:
| This gives consent automatically (in an unspecified
| amount of cases). The correct action is to respond with a
| "no consent" answer every time, because withdrawing your
| consent for every single optional cookie category
| _should_ be the default. People bother you with popups
| because they hate you, not because they are mandatory.
| RealStickman_ wrote:
| While it's true that this extension sometimes accepts all
| cookies, that isn't the case most of the time. From the
| extension's website:
|
| > In most cases, it just blocks or hides cookie related
| pop-ups. When it's needed for the website to work
| properly, it will automatically accept the cookie policy
| for you (sometimes it will accept all and sometimes only
| necessary cookie categories, depending on what's easier
| to do). It doesn't delete cookies.
|
| It would be helpful to have a "what did you choose on
| this site" view though if that doesn't exist yet.
| krageon wrote:
| It would be better if the default was to reject always,
| everywhere. And the "please pander to corporate evil"
| flag was something to turn on explicitly.
| [deleted]
| estambar wrote:
| We are addressing some of the page rendering issues discussed in
| the comments below and hope to have them resolved soon. Sorry
| about that!
| tofuahdude wrote:
| These animations are painful!
| Queue29 wrote:
| This blog post is literally unreadable with animations flying
| around covering up content, is that by design?
| alex3305 wrote:
| I have Windows zoomed in at 125% and at my 1080p height screen
| some content boxes don't even fit my full view height.
| Thankfully the full report is direct linked here.
| nemothekid wrote:
| These blog posts used to be really good in comparing different
| clouds; I'm not sure why they decided that this was the optimal
| way to display this information.
| soco wrote:
| This feels like back in the 90s with those GIF-laden scrolling
| text webpages. I can't fathom what goes into the mind of a
| designer creating all this nonsense for what basically is a
| table report. Does anyone in their right mind expect people
| would be more attracted by banners frolicking around?
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > I can't fathom what goes into the mind of a designer
|
| Don't underestimate the damage an overly eager and naive
| developer can do.
|
| Or, (maybe more likely in this case?) a CMS author who's been
| given a little bit too much power?
| Thev00d00 wrote:
| It also ignores the "prefers-reduced-motion" CSS Media feature
| flag :(
| 0des wrote:
| so? this isnt about accessibility its about preference. i
| prefer white backgrounds but im not sad when a site author
| chooses pink.
| cpmsmith wrote:
| How should you know whether it's about accessibility? The
| `prefers-reduced-motion` feature is explicitly[0] intended
| to accommodate people with vestibular motion disorders,
| which are common above age 40.[1]
|
| [0]: https://drafts.csswg.org/mediaqueries-5/#prefers-
| reduced-mot...
|
| [1]: https://vestibular.org/article/what-is-
| vestibular/about-vest...
| bowmessage wrote:
| If it's really bad, couldn't they apply userstyles that
| disable all animation with `!important`? `prefers-*`
| settings seem somewhat optional, best-effort, based on
| their name.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Sure, please write it, ship it, and then support my 8+
| aging family members who need to use it.
|
| Or just follow the spec.
| J1859 wrote:
| Dang! I didn't know this was a thing! Thanks!!
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Probably, they want you to download their report which requires
| a work email nad personal details.
| dsiegel2275 wrote:
| The JavaScript console is your friend:
|
| document.querySelectorAll('.aos-init').forEach(e => e.remove())
|
| The above will remove all of those popups.
| namibj wrote:
| I had confirmed that the overlay is intended teasing to get you
| to download the PDF.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-16 23:01 UTC)