[HN Gopher] GCP automatically lowered our quota, caused an incid...
___________________________________________________________________
GCP automatically lowered our quota, caused an incident, and
refused to upgrade
Author : teej
Score : 168 points
Date : 2023-06-10 17:42 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| redman25 wrote:
| We had a similar thing happen with our company. Google had given
| a bigquery concurrent query limit extension to 300 queries. In
| January they removed the extension back down to 100 concurrent
| queries because they were introducing "query queues" that should
| cover the difference.
|
| Unfortunately for us, query queues only affect spikes in
| concurrent queries and not overall throughput. We've been
| struggling with bigquery support ever since.
| newhouseb wrote:
| Quota management is indeed nonsensical. We serve large cash
| assistance programs that have stampedes of people applying all
| at once where we needed decent geocoding to determine
| eligibility. We were exceeding the default 50qps quota. I asked
| nicely (to double it, I think) and explained our use case and
| they said... no.
|
| So... we left and switched to Smarty and haven't looked back
| since. We spend tens of thousands on geocoding annually. Really
| mind-boggling behavior from GCP.
| nathants wrote:
| the purpose of not aws is two:
|
| - put price/quality pressure on aws
|
| - fill weird niches made by regulatory capture and other nonsense
|
| not using aws is like not using linux. there are valid reasons,
| but you don't want any of them.
| aftbit wrote:
| Well unless you just want to run your own hardware. That can be
| orders of magnitude cheaper (business trajectory changing
| stuff, think offering a free plan vs not) for the right kind of
| workloads.
| nathants wrote:
| optionality. having aws doesn't mean using it for everything.
|
| for most uses cases, netflix model seems like the right one.
| control plane on cloud, data plane on not cloud.
|
| at a minimum you probably want to backup some high value data
| in s3 unless you have a more durable store somewhere.
| Demmme wrote:
| Just an anecdotal counter point: very happy with gcp.
|
| Best network from all and coherent modern ui.
|
| Not the usability hell like azure... (You know when clicking on a
| often used resource on the start page which let's you jump
| directly to it but doesn't allow you to jump a level up of all
| the other resources of the same type which totally works fine
| when you navigate to it the normal way... Or the huge hassle and
| complexity of resource groups for f everything...)
|
| But you know the tweet not even states what quota was reduced.
| HatchedLake721 wrote:
| UI in the world of terraform and pulumi where some companies
| even block UI access in prod?
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| You lost me at UI. But I'm one who believes if you don't write
| your software defined infrastructure as software, you'll regret
| life pretty soon.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| A UI for cloud services is super helpful to have when
| exploring, troubleshooting, and noodling around. But yeah,
| massive red flag if anyone's using it to deploy production
| services.
| paulgb wrote:
| That's a pretty myopic view of what a UI can be used for. I'm
| all in on IAC but still like having a UI to click around to
| observe state rather than memorize a bunch of CLI commands.
| textninja wrote:
| [flagged]
| baxtr wrote:
| They're the top comment now. Sometimes it's worth to wait and
| see how it settles.
| bluepizza wrote:
| OP is being downvoted because his anecdotal defense of GCP
| due to nice UI is irrelevant to the link posted. And probably
| to cloud computing in general.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| A resource group is literally just a folder -- a name -- and
| is the _best_ feature of Azure.
|
| For comparison, any large AWS account is always a total mess.
| Just an endless list of randomly named things that are
| totally unrelated to each other.
|
| If _that_ is his criticism, he deserves the down votes.
|
| I bet his desktop has a hundred icons on it strewn randomly
| where half of them are named "file.txt" and "document.doc"
| coredog64 wrote:
| AWS has Resource Groups:
| https://docs.aws.amazon.com/ARG/latest/userguide/resource-
| gr...
|
| Resource Groups are supported pretty well within the
| CloudWatch ecosystem (you can create an AppInsights
| application from an RG and you can filter CW alarms by RG)
| deathanatos wrote:
| Well, part of his criticism is that the UI is woefully
| inconsistent with regards to "upwards" navigation. If you
| navigate to a resource via the resource group, you can
| navigate back "up" to the parent RG. If you nagivate to the
| resource from the home screen, IIRC, you cannot. That's the
| criticism.
|
| Yes, RG's are a pretty killer feature, and trying to
| understand the organization of resources in GCP is hard by
| comparison, and an utter nightmare in AWS. I'm not sure why
| he's knocking that. (And ... GCP requires projects, which
| seem equivalent to the complaint against RGs.)
|
| ... that said ... there are so many other things utterly
| and horrifically wrong with Azure that I wouldn't put them
| on a pedestal for resource groups. As much as I do like
| RGs.
|
| (Also, "A resource group is literally just a folder" _sigh_
| , no, because they're not hierarchical. Azure goofed hard
| there.)
| LoganDark wrote:
| They replied to an incident report with "works for me". (With
| an implied "sounds suspicious" in the last sentence, but I
| don't pretend to know whether that's what they meant.)
| seanhunter wrote:
| I think they may be being downvoted not because their opinion
| is different but because usability of the web UI is possibly
| the least important attribute in choosing a cloud provider
| for a lot of people given the use of tools such as terraform.
| TX81Z wrote:
| I was happy with Azure but just got a bill with "other" charges
| for $1k on what is a basic VM used solely as a db replica.
| richieartoul wrote:
| Interzone bandwidth maybe? They used to not charge for that,
| but they started doing so recently
| elankart wrote:
| This is certainly a troll post. I use all three cloud
| providers. GCP is the worst of all, just try their simple text
| to speech UI. It doesn't work most of the times.
|
| Don't even get me started on a deployment story for GCP their
| deployment manager is deprecated and redirect you to use
| terraform.
|
| I hate to swallow it but Azure was more usable and
| straightforward.
| VirusNewbie wrote:
| Azure has had multiple global outages for many services. I
| believe you can look at overall stability and see it's not in
| the same league as GCP and AWS.
| dimgl wrote:
| > Azure was more usable and straightforward.
|
| There is no world where Azure is more usable and
| straightforward. Just my two cents.
| showdeddd wrote:
| This article seems silly, just add custom metrics to your app for
| what was fetched from cache vs DB. And label the metric by
| route/query/pattern. To control costs, don't tick the metric for
| every single request, instead accumulate locally and post to
| metrics API every X minutes.
| jtchang wrote:
| Why don't I hear about these incidents with AWS? Is it just less
| common or different business takes on quotas and rate limits?
| iot_devs wrote:
| I personally reply to customers inquiries on a very famous AWS
| product where the client was asking why the execution was
| interrupted after the timeout they set themselves expired and
| why it was a timeout error.
|
| I am an engineer working on such products and it was a routine
| on-call shift where I got this kind of question.
|
| Admittedly we should have this cover by our support engineers,
| that are very very good, but this one slip through and I took
| the time to answer such query.
|
| I am not a fanboy or anything, I could not be further from a
| fanboy or a blind fan.
|
| But after working on AWS, I do suggest it as very sensible
| choice. Again, not because it is my employer but because they
| really take care of operations and customers.
|
| Screw ups can happen but they are very rare in my experience.
| balls187 wrote:
| AWS is great.
|
| Gotta check out FBA/Amazin Marketplace to find all the nasty on
| Amazon.
| elankart wrote:
| In what world is AWS great? A world where they don't have a
| clean way to group resources and clean them up? Their own
| twisted identity products in AWS that doesn't integrate
| outside their cloud or their other products. A world where
| they leave lingering resources when you cleanup something.
|
| AWS has to much hype riding behind it.
|
| It's not enterprise class and looks very incohesive.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| I've seen a lot of incidents reported about AWS involving
| quotas, in the other direction: "I can't sign up new customers
| because I'm at a quota limit on resources", sometimes with "and
| AWS is taking a long time reviewing a quota increase", with the
| occasional "and AWS denied a quota increase".
| marcinzm wrote:
| Google wouldn't increase my quota unless I talked to a sales
| person. I wanted 4 GPUs. 4. That took at least a week to
| achieve.
| coredog64 wrote:
| AWS quotas come in hard and soft varieties. A hard quota
| cannot be changed as it's factored into service operations
| (e.g. APIGW's 29 second integration timeout). A soft quota
| may or may not require review before being granted. However,
| if it is a soft quota, the best thing to do is escalate to
| your TAM after opening with the business impact of the
| request. The TAM is paid out of your enterprise support
| contract, so the least they can do is advocate for you.
| cyclotron3k wrote:
| My problem with the quote system is that it's largely
| opaque until you run into it. Yes, you can pore through the
| documentation and find the relevant quotas, but did you
| find them all? Spoiler alert: no, you didn't.
|
| I know they are trying to improve visibility on quota
| limits, and they have a tool now, but in my experience it
| was half baked and only knew about a handful of the limits
| we were running into.
| joecool1029 wrote:
| Some of the AWS services have clear quota limits and it
| works as expected, you give me 10k widget credits and if
| I use 10k widget credits it stops working and I need to
| open a ticket. Example of this would be SES.
|
| Where it ends up being a bit of a nightmare is stuff like
| SMS on SNS where they would specify a quota but we could
| still hit it before their system reported it. We never
| did figure out if they were looking at a rolling monthly
| average and bursty campaigns could cause it to creep
| above their projection. This was always a manual review
| for this product and the only way we could avoid it was
| getting way higher quotas than we needed approved.
| Ultimately we ended up moving SMS over to Nexmo (now
| Vonage) for bulk SMS so we didn't have to have potential
| outages when the mystery quota of the now was reached.
| adrr wrote:
| Because Amazon will jump through hoops to make the customer
| happy. If I file ticket to get a quota raised it usually
| happens the same day and I have never had them push back on me.
| theptip wrote:
| Ran my startup on GCP. No regrets. Can't recall a time I
| waited more than a few hours for a quota bump.
|
| Only time I ever got pushback was trying to get them to make
| an unreasonable quota increase to work around a bug in early
| GKE that left stale network backend lying around, and when I
| explained they approved it.
|
| I've found GCP support to be reasonable, but you have to pay
| for the enterprise tier. Their pricing model used to be
| insane ($250/seat??) but they fixed that a few years ago. I
| suspect a lot (not all!) of the complaints around here are
| for hobbyist / free tier, which sure, is garbage. If you
| spend $K/yr on support it's fine though.
| rhtgrg wrote:
| > Is it just less common or different business takes on quotas
| and rate limits?
|
| Neither, you're probably not seeking out such stories (there
| are plenty, even on HN). Google tends to get more negative
| attention on this particular forum, which might play a role,
| but the larger component is probably just chance.
| CSMastermind wrote:
| I disagree that it's simple selection bias.
|
| AWS is _extremely_ customer friendly and if this happened
| would likely be offering dedicated support to make it right,
| credits for the business loss, etc.
|
| Google's customer service is the worst I've experienced in
| the industry (like even speaking to a person is hard). While
| AWS is some of the best I've received.
| neilv wrote:
| I'm sure that GCP _could_ turn around their HN customer
| service reputation, if they wanted to prioritize that.
|
| Though, when it might not be baked into the culture as much
| as at AWS, I don't know offhand how to reconcile a customer
| happiness turnaround with the rush to avoid being an also-
| ran in the AI deployment frenzy.
|
| (Are you going to assign conflicting KPIs in a company that
| has cultivated a career-driven culture, and hope that
| individuals strike optimal balances for the company? Or
| partition the goal assignments to separate teams, when the
| optimal outcome requires holistic thinking and behavior
| across teams?)
| etse wrote:
| Wasn't this supposed to be Kurian's prerogative--sell
| enterprise services? Google product seem fine to me, but
| I agree that they have no customer care DNA. I was
| expecting someone from the outside to bring it in.
| pram wrote:
| I worked in Kurian's org at Oracle and I was shocked when
| Google hired him. OCI was a total disaster at the start.
| Like embarrassingly bad, they threw most of the original
| platform in the trash.
|
| Literally failing upward.
| rhtgrg wrote:
| > AWS is _extremely_ customer friendly and if this happened
| would likely be offering dedicated support to make it
| right, credits for the business loss, etc.
|
| It doesn't take much legwork to find counterexamples of
| that claim, even on HN (see below, I spent 2 minutes
| searching to find those).
|
| > Google's customer service is the worst I've experienced
| in the industry (like even speaking to a person is hard).
| While AWS is some of the best I've received.
|
| This is a bit too hyperbolic for me, but on balance I agree
| that Amazon has better customer experience than Google.
| That doesn't really answer what GP is asking, especially
| given all the posts made about AWS on this very forum that
| only sometimes get attention.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2478129
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25224220
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35375558
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16283547
| marcinzm wrote:
| >That doesn't really answer what GP is asking, especially
| given all the posts made about AWS on this very forum
| that only sometimes get attention.
|
| If these are your examples of angry AWS posts then I
| think it just proves that AWS has amazing in customer
| service.
|
| >https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2478129
|
| That's 12 years old but a legitimate complaint about AWS
| customer service.
|
| >https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25224220
|
| Sounds like AWS had an outage, not sure how this is about
| customer service?
|
| >https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35375558
|
| That's a list of AWS customer's having security incidents
| and, again, nothing about AWS customer service.
|
| >https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16283547
|
| Not sure what this is about since the link is dead except
| due to being 5 years old but, based on the upvotes, it's
| someone failing to get people to have angry opinions
| about AWS? Not sure how this is about AWS customer
| service given the context.
| rhtgrg wrote:
| Given that this isn't handpicked and just top results
| from a 2-minute search:
|
| > That's 12 years old but a legitimate complaint about
| AWS customer service.
|
| Should have at least prompted you to do your own search.
| The fact that it didn't is the end of this discussion.
| marcinzm wrote:
| So you made a claim that there's "there are plenty, even
| on HN" and then utterly failed to provide any proof even
| after trying. Then when called out you blamed the other
| person for not doing so on your behalf. I'm going to
| stick with my response.
| kenhwang wrote:
| I've seen my org send a silly amount of silly questions
| that were obviously our fault to AWS support and they
| always took it in stride. We very rarely needed to follow
| up with our client executive (but they always offer to jump
| in if necessary). When we did have serious issues, we had
| no problem scheduling time with the executive managing the
| product and the engineers that wrote the code.
|
| Meanwhile we can't even get Google to answer an email about
| serious incidents that were very obviously their fault,
| much less assign a dedicated human point person (hell with
| AWS, we even had several backup contacts assigned to cover
| for vacation time). We were important enough to be featured
| on their client success frontpage, but that didn't make a
| difference in support quality we received.
|
| I can't imagine why anyone would risk their business with
| GCE. Especially since it tends to cost more than AWS these
| days.
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| Amazon worked very hard to build a culture of customer
| service. Google worked very hard to create tech and create
| a developer-first culture.
|
| You're seeing culture in operation.
| [deleted]
| oldtownroad wrote:
| Amazon hate their employees. Google hate their customers.
| neilv wrote:
| Best of both worlds would be a place that takes great care of
| both customers and employees.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Well, yeah, obviously if you can have the best of all
| worlds then by all means do that, but in practice
| something's going to give; if you _did_ somehow prioritize
| customer and employee well-being, it would almost certainly
| manifest in much higher prices, not actually sustaining
| quality, or both. (Now, charging more for a better outcome
| does seem like a good idea, but in practice >90% of
| customers will go for the cheaper option.)
| robocat wrote:
| Most people seem to equate employee well-being with more
| money.
|
| Plenty of people care more about other job qualities than
| how much it pays, and a well run business can create a
| great environment without paying more than average. Look
| for companies where turnover is almost zero (assuming
| company is not growing) and you often find happy
| employees.
|
| Places with worse employee conditions have to pay more,
| everything else held equal.
|
| Anecdotally, I have certainly stayed in jobs with poorer
| pay because I liked my colleagues and the working
| conditions; but alternatively I have stayed in another
| job mostly because the pay was great.
| Animats wrote:
| Google giveth, and Google taketh away. Blessed be the name of
| Google.
| civilitty wrote:
| To our queries, it lights the way. In its Matrix, we are but a
| doodle.
|
| Blessed be the name of Google, come what may.
| invalidname wrote:
| From my past experience Google is by far the worst when it comes
| to support. By far. Even if you pay for their gold support you're
| lucky if you reach an engineer and even then they blame you for
| the problem with no "proof" or direction. Most unhelpful ever...
| See: https://medium.com/hackernoon/why-and-how-we-left-app-
| engine...
|
| AWS were surprisingly helpful by comparison and even pro-active.
| Not a fan of theirs overall but much better than Google. This is
| a deep cultural problem with Google that also expresses itself in
| mobile development and everywhere:
| https://dev.to/codenameone/google-play-kafkaesque-experience...
|
| They aren't the cheapest and their service is terrible. I can't
| think of a good reason to use GCP.
| showdeddd wrote:
| This medium article seems silly, just add custom metrics to
| your app for what was fetched from cache vs DB. And label the
| metric by route/query/pattern. To control costs, don't tick the
| metric for every single request, instead accumulate locally and
| post to metrics API every X minutes.
| tyingq wrote:
| > accumulate locally
|
| Is that an option in AppEngine? The memcache docs seem to
| indicate the free tier has undocumented eviction policies.
| showdeddd wrote:
| You have to implement that with your own code but it isn't
| much more than a dict/map and a timestamp for last update.
| tyingq wrote:
| Same-ish problem, though. You wouldn't know for sure the
| instance will run again...your dict/map data can be
| dropped. I don't see any sort of instance timeout
| callback where you could guard against that.
| showdeddd wrote:
| I think it's negligible. The only metrics you lose are on
| rare scaledowns and they are averaged out anyways. GCP
| likes to keep instances idle for a long time.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Ymmv. I found a bug in their CA/PKI service, sent an example in
| and got a callback and feedback from a knowledgeable engineer
| who wrote me a workaround and put in a change request. I think
| the bug was fixed in a few weeks.
|
| My team works with lots of companies, Google is one of the
| better ones in our experience. AWS is also excellent. I'm told
| Azure is good, but most of my experience with Microsoft is with
| enterprise product support, which is awful.
| fastest963 wrote:
| I've created several tickets against both AWS and GCP and had
| good and bad experiences with each. I actually used to have
| mostly bad experiences (a lot of useless back and forth, wrong
| answers, etc) with GCP but the last few years it's actually
| gotten significantly better. For example, we found a bug with
| autoscaling specific instance types (it's now posted as a known
| issue) and it was acknowledged and workarounds suggested
| without much hassle.
| brigadier132 wrote:
| I'm only considering them because of GKE autopilot and cloud
| run which both seem like completely painless ways to deploy
| containers (I've setup prototypes with both).
| textninja wrote:
| I find the self-serve UI and overall experience with GCP to be
| superior, so to me it's a bit like the premium you pay for a
| Mac over a PC. Granted I never needed or wanted to speak to a
| human, but their infamy in that respect deserves a special nod
| of acknowledgment.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| That's sort of the flip side of the coin. Google firmly
| believes that technology can solve everything and humans
| shouldn't need to be involved out of principle. So they build
| a great UI, great tools for devs and engineers to use, and
| then provide absolutely zero humans to support that.
|
| I have a hilarious situation at the moment where they decided
| to shut down my Workspace account because they retracted the
| grandfathered-in free tier. This has 15+years of history of a
| small business I ran in it. I _tried_ to move it to a paid
| account, but because the account was created in a different
| country to my current billing country, the form doesn 't work
| (can't enter address for credit card). And there's just
| literally NO way to do it. No avenue to any way to contact a
| human to quite literally _give them money_. So in the end I
| gave up : downloaded the emails and resigned myself to losing
| all the other history associated with the account.
|
| But what's really hilarious is they can't seem to shut it
| down either, perhaps for the same reason. Every time they set
| a new billing deadline it warns me with another spate of
| emails and then the date goes by and its still there. I
| suspect their software doesn't know how to shut down a hybrid
| multi-country account either, and there are no humans so they
| are stuck.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Tweet has basically no details
| Havoc wrote:
| That's presumably how they felt too...
| yashg wrote:
| I keep getting badgered by GCP channel partners to move over to
| GCP. One guy once said if I can show him our AWS usage he can
| give me exact configuration in GCP and cost would be 20-25% less.
| I was intrigued so I shared. He came back with a price estimate
| higher than our AWS bill! I haven't entertained them ever since.
| neilv wrote:
| They lost a sale, but they got competitive data.
|
| Maybe that's how that salesperson or their org thinks?
| nordsieck wrote:
| > Maybe that's how that salesperson or their org thinks?
|
| Nah - it's just a numbers game. Sometimes they'll be wrong;
| that's a dead end.
|
| Sometimes they'll be right. And some of those times, they'll
| make a sale.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > One guy once said if I can show him our AWS usage he can give
| me exact configuration in GCP and cost would be 20-25% less. I
| was intrigued so I shared. He came back with a price estimate
| higher than our AWS bill!
|
| Now I have to know more! Did you call him on it? Did he have
| any sort of explanation/excuse?
| willtemperley wrote:
| I had to close my GCP account because I was being spammed with
| "Action Required" emails every day for a non-existent tax admin
| issue. Bug reports were immediately closed and getting through to
| a human seems impossible.
| parpfish wrote:
| I've recently had an issue where GCP keeps shutting down my
| e2.micro because they think I'm crypto mining. I have no idea
| what I'm doing to trigger it, and I don't blame them for not
| sharing their secret anti fraud heuristics, but it's a freakin
| e2.micro. They think I'm mining on that?!
| missingdays wrote:
| Why would they care if you mine crypto? You pay for resource
| usage, you use resources
| aseipp wrote:
| Fraud vector. It's very easy to turn compute into dollars if
| the compute is free or stolen. Cloud compute is very cost
| ineffective for something like coin mining, so any actual
| legitimate miners on any chain are going to just run
| everything in-house anyway. In the end, that means the people
| left in that pool predominantly fall into two groups: A)
| people using stolen credit cards B) accounts that had hacked
| credentials or leaked API keys running rampant.
|
| Whatever heuristics cloud providers tend to use to discover
| and "remediate" such behavior is a totally different thing
| (e.g. obliterating an established account when an API key
| might have gotten leaked and a few GPUs let loose is a little
| overboard), but if I was offering a similar compute service,
| and its sole purpose _wasn 't_ just coin mining, I'd almost
| certainly ban it as well for similar reasons.
| cavisne wrote:
| Its impossible to profitably mine crypto on a public cloud so
| anyone doing it is either stupid, or has no intention of
| paying (much more common!).
|
| Historically GCP/GAE has had a more generous free tier
| without credit card requirements, so they've always been a
| bit stricter on this than the other clouds.
| herdrick wrote:
| Providers often just ban all crypto mining. I think it might
| be because of pressure from authorities fighting money
| laundering.
| Sebguer wrote:
| No, it's because it's an extraordinarily common fraud
| vector, and causes noisy neighbor problem because despite
| GP's remark about 'paying for resource usage', cloud
| providers don't actually anticipate anyone using 100% of
| CPU 24/7/365. And the folks who really _are_ crypto mining
| are never going to pay their monthly invoice.
|
| Source: Worked at a cloud infra provider that struggled
| deeply with this problem.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > despite GP's remark about 'paying for resource usage',
| cloud providers don't actually anticipate anyone using
| 100% of CPU 24/7/365
|
| Unless that's exposed to the customer (AWS burstable
| instances are actually okay IMO), that sounds like the
| cloud provider committing fraud and hoping nobody calls
| their bluff.
| Sebguer wrote:
| You don't know what the word fraud means, and I recommend
| reading these crazy things called 'terms of service'.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > The crime of stealing or otherwise illegally obtaining
| money by use of deception tactics.
|
| > Any act of deception carried out for the purpose of
| unfair, undeserved and/or unlawful gain.
|
| (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fraud#Noun)
|
| Is the cloud provider getting money off of this
| arrangement? => Yes, obviously they're getting paid here.
|
| Is the cloud provider getting that money as a result of
| deception? => Yes, by selling ex. the use of 1 CPU core
| when they actually have no intention of letting you use
| that core. Now, I'll grant that in an actual legal case
| it might well be possible to get away with this by
| burying it in the ToS, but this is HN, not a court room,
| so I'm comfortable setting the bar at "would most actual
| users expect that to happen based on marketing?",
| conclude that no, most users would consider that
| surprising even if there's something buried in the ToS
| claiming that it's allowed, and call a spade a spade.
| parpfish wrote:
| the problem is that the terms of service say "don't mine
| crypto", and I'm not. they've set up an imperfect
| detection mechanism and I'm one of the false positives
| but have no meaningful way to prove my innocence.
|
| the worst part is that there's somebody in a GCP office
| somewhere that might secretly believe that I'm actually a
| cryptobro. _shudder_
| sigstoat wrote:
| > the worst part is that there's somebody in a GCP office
| somewhere that might secretly believe that I'm actually a
| cryptobro.
|
| you're probably safe on that front, it isn't like the GCP
| folks are paying any attention to the customers.
| jmaker wrote:
| So you pay expecting full utilization but are expected to
| utilize on a fair-share basis only? And if I run my Monte
| Carlo simulation, which can take a week to complete, my
| instance is flagged for alleged crypto mining?
| Sebguer wrote:
| This generally depends on the tier of service you're
| paying for. Every infra provider offers tiers that
| provide dedicated resources. AWS handles this via CPU
| credits, other providers are less sophisticated.
|
| Generally speaking you're not going to get banned unless
| you spin up max quotas and have other signals for fraud,
| such as zero payment history, connecting from regions
| with high fraud rates, etc. More often the provider will
| just limit your resources - either openly, like AWS does,
| or more subtly.
| reaperman wrote:
| It's a _very_ convenient way to convert identity theft into
| cash. A huge amount of cloud crypto mining is paid for in
| fraudulent credit cards. Detecting and banning crypto mining
| greatly reduces % of fraudulent transactions as these
| attackers will move on to greener pastures.
|
| They can also use an absolutely incredible amount of
| resources, because it's not their money. Two hundred A100
| GPU's for a week? Sure, why not?
| TX81Z wrote:
| Maybe they're waiting to finish the big roll out of NFT on
| YouTube!
| professorsnep wrote:
| GCE allows one e2.micro instance in their free tier
| pawelduda wrote:
| Wonder what does GCP side have to say on this
| slig wrote:
| Computer says no.
| mmanciop wrote:
| [flagged]
| uoaei wrote:
| It is interesting to note the differences in apparent
| defensibility of companies such as Google and Reddit changing
| terms of use and behaviors of platforms.
|
| According to the general sentiment on HN, Google is being mean to
| developers and shouldn't get away with things like this, but
| Reddit merely has a rug and developers are silly to build things
| on top of that rug when it can be pulled away at any time.
|
| I wonder why there's a difference here.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| Well, GCP is literally selling a "platform" to developers.
| Whereas Reddit is a consumer website?
| holografix wrote:
| A friend works at GCP and has told me this time and time again:
| if you don't buy support from GCP _you have no support_.
| azmodeus wrote:
| Even if you buy support it is not comparable to AWS. I suffered
| GCP Dataflow support in the past it was: 1. slow 2.
| condescending 3. not helpful Really don't recommend GCP for
| long term use. If you get some free credits it's good to use it
| to train some ML models but AWS is much more customer friendly.
| profwalkstr wrote:
| It feels as if Google is intentionally trying to sabotage its own
| cloud business
| mvdtnz wrote:
| Quota for what?
| exabrial wrote:
| Once Again: Do not use Google for anything. Given they treat the
| consumer side of their business like cattle (Gmail, maps, etc)
| (,and despite the fact that an email address is an essential part
| of one's daily life: access to banking, investments,
| communication, cell phone, employment opportunities), they
| operate with absolutely zero support.
|
| What makes you think they'll treat your small business any
| differently? You will be thrown under the bus the second you make
| them lift a finger to help you.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-10 23:01 UTC)