[HN Gopher] Google is force canceling gsuite because I used unli...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Google is force canceling gsuite because I used unlimited storage
       as unlimited
        
       Author : lopkeny12ko
       Score  : 49 points
       Date   : 2024-06-22 20:54 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (twitter.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
        
       | josephcsible wrote:
       | I hope whoever that is has a really fast Internet connection,
       | because 400TB is too much to download in 30 days even with a
       | 1Gbps connection.
        
         | null3cksor wrote:
         | Thats just over 88 hours.
        
           | Jtsummers wrote:
           | ~400,000 GB * 8 bits/Byte = 3,200,000 Gb at 1Gbps that's
           | 3,200,000 seconds or about 888 hours or about 37 days. If
           | that's 400TB * 1024, instead of 1000, then it's a bit longer,
           | pushing 38 days.
        
             | netsharc wrote:
             | Sheesh, the TCP and whatever else overhead is probably more
             | than the 24 byte difference of 1024 vs 1000..
        
               | dark-star wrote:
               | Did you ever try and calculate the difference?
               | 
               | 1TiB = 1024GiB = 1024 _1024MiB = 1024_ 1024 _1024KiB =
               | 1024_ 1024 _1024_ 1024 bytes...
               | 
               | 1024^4 is 1099511627776 bytes...
               | 
               | So it's 1099 GB vs 1000 GB which is a solid 10%
               | difference. Your TCP overhead is not anywhere close to
               | 10% unless you are sending with an MTU of 240...
        
           | duskwuff wrote:
           | 88 hours would be at 1 GB/sec = 8 Gbps, not 1 Gbps.
           | 
           | 400 TB over 30 days is about 1.23 Gbps.
        
           | Timothee wrote:
           | ChatGPT and Wolfram Alpha confirmed to me that it's about 37
           | days, which is 888 hours, not 88 :)
           | 
           | Wolfram Alpha:
           | https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=400tb+at+1gbps ChatGPT: 
           | https://chatgpt.com/share/4ddd464a-dabd-4c12-9cc4-e8271a51a6.
           | ..
           | 
           | (ChatGPT did a great job at breaking down the problem)
        
             | cassianoleal wrote:
             | So did your sibling comments and I imagine anyone with very
             | basic maths skills could.
             | 
             | And most likely burning a lot less carbon than ChatGPT.
        
             | netsharc wrote:
             | Except everyone is forgetting the TCP/IP overhead. I also
             | asked ChatGPT, and 400TB of data creates a 10.7TB overhead,
             | which adds ~5 days...
        
               | dark-star wrote:
               | if you had done the math yourself you would have arrived
               | at a different number....
        
           | heeton wrote:
           | It's ~888 hours, or 37 days.
           | 
           | You dropped a 0 somewhere.
        
           | dsjoerg wrote:
           | 37 days: https://chatgpt.com/share/bff87762-664e-4350-abf9-54
           | be80064b...
           | 
           | 1Gbps is 1 gigaBIT per second.
        
         | tombert wrote:
         | I wonder if they'll give the option for them to move to a paid
         | storage option, at least temporarily, for them to have enough
         | time to download everything.
        
         | daveoc64 wrote:
         | Generally, services like Google Drive can't even max out a
         | 1Gbps connection.
        
       | remram wrote:
       | Google is also revoking the unlimited storage they granted to
       | universities in the US. Many of my colleagues have terabytes (and
       | 1-2 PB for some) of research data or lab backups on Drive that IT
       | is having a hard time relocating.
        
         | shreddit wrote:
         | This being a thing should have been pretty obvious. "Unlimited"
         | never means unlimited in a literal sense. Even if phrased like
         | so.
         | 
         | And loosing actual backup files a whole different story...
        
           | AlexandrB wrote:
           | Saying something and then pretending you actually meant a
           | different thing is lying. It shouldn't be up to the consumer
           | to understand the minutia of an industry and intuit whether
           | "unlimited" actually means "unlimited".
        
             | simondotau wrote:
             | Unlimited has never meant unlimited in its truest sense.
             | It's just that the consumer tends to have their own natural
             | limits, whether that's time, or attention span, or the
             | human body's ability to ingest liquid.
        
           | Grimeton wrote:
           | There is a commonly and widespread accepted definition of the
           | term "unlimited" If anyone uses it outside of that
           | definition, it needs to be disclosed upfront. If that didn't
           | happen, then it's "unlimited" as in the common widespread
           | definition of the term.
           | 
           | If you change the definition later, then you have changed
           | your mind and look for a loophole to f people over.
           | 
           | That's all there is to it.
           | 
           | They said unlimited and now they're not keeping their word.
        
             | etrautmann wrote:
             | Sure, but if something seems too good to be true then it
             | probably is. As an academic with hundreds of TB of data, I
             | personally wouldn't assume that some company would
             | _actually_ provide unlimited storage in perpetuity when the
             | costs are clear and obvious.
        
               | Grimeton wrote:
               | Of course I would. It's Google! They can do it! And
               | obviously they did.
               | 
               | How else do we explain people with petabytes of data on
               | Google's drives when the term "unlimited" meant "30GB"?
        
         | politelemon wrote:
         | Any idea what approach they're going to take? I wonder if
         | Gsuite have an unpunished ability to do a snowball type export
         | as a one-off.
        
       | allturtles wrote:
       | The story here is that Google _used to_ have unlimited storage,
       | and now they don 't (for the obvious reason that it was a bad
       | idea), and are enforcing 5TB/user limits on enterprise accounts.
       | This was announced well in advance with plenty of warning.
        
         | DANmode wrote:
         | How much adv. warning makes up for making a promise you (should
         | have known you) couldn't keep?
        
           | x0x0 wrote:
           | However much was specified in the contract.
           | 
           | If you used a service you pay month-to-month, you explicitly
           | agreed that, just like you can cancel w/ a month's notice,
           | the counterparty can change terms with the same 30d notice.
        
           | Barrin92 wrote:
           | A reasonable amount which they did. There was nothing bad
           | faith about this. Google did offer unlimited space, people
           | abused the crap out of it, they changed it. This is literally
           | just childish behavior.
           | 
           | Unlimited offers have always implicit limits which every
           | adult understands. When you go to the all you can eat buffet
           | there's a common sense understanding that you can't literally
           | fill your pockets with a thousand bucks worth of food.
        
             | cal85 wrote:
             | > abused
             | 
             | used
        
         | angry_moose wrote:
         | Microsoft too: https://www.techradar.com/pro/exclusive-
         | microsoft-quietly-en...
         | 
         | It's bitten a team I work with pretty hard, who for some
         | inexplicable reason decided to store everything on OneDrive
         | instead of our enormous on-prem NAS. Even more fun; all of
         | their accounts still say "XTB of unlimited", the new data caps
         | seem to be different for every user (everyone gets cut off at
         | different amounts), and IT can't even get a straight answer
         | about what the new caps are.
        
           | kevingadd wrote:
           | The new default is that everything goes to OneDrive. If you
           | have data on your hard disk in regular Documents folders, it
           | will move it to OneDrive without asking you.
        
             | angry_moose wrote:
             | No, this was a conscious decision on their part that they
             | would store X00GB phsyics simulation results on OneDrive
             | instead of the on-prem system that every other department
             | uses. They've even written it up that its considered their
             | "standard practice".
             | 
             | OneDrive has been worse in just about every possible
             | benchmark so no one is sure why they did it. Best guess is
             | it was some HPPO decision, who may or may not still be with
             | the company.
        
               | dijit wrote:
               | Both of you are correct; it may have been an intentional
               | choice by your team (since, otherwise it would go to a
               | private onedrive, not a shared OneDrive).
               | 
               | It's also true that Documents are linked to OneDrive now
               | in corp environments.
               | 
               | I _think_ there 's a way to disable it, but of course
               | there's a different setting for the Office Suite, they
               | also default to OneDrive.
        
       | walrushunter wrote:
       | Without telling us how much storage he was actually using, this
       | post is worthless. I could trivially abuse any "unlimited"
       | storage plan to make the provider renege on their claims.
        
         | jameskilton wrote:
         | Read the comments, 400TB, and he's not bitter, but expected
         | this to happen. Seems to be posting it because it's
         | entertaining more than anything.
        
       | katbyte wrote:
       | I sincerely wish that any company that advertised unlimited and
       | didn't actually allow unlimited X was penalized because it is
       | straight up false advertising.
       | 
       | unlimited data (but after 5tb we throttle you to 100kpbs) is not
       | unlimited it is 5tb + 100k * 30 * 24 * 60 * 60
       | 
       | Google was unlimited with 5 users. Then they rug pulled and it
       | was "as much as you need" + "you can request increases every 3
       | months". then prices went way up. now its "you are only allowed 3
       | increases"
       | 
       | its fine to have limits but businesses should be forced to
       | disclose them upfront
        
         | leetrout wrote:
         | Same for unlimited vacation.
        
         | cogman10 wrote:
         | Yup. This should be considered bait and switch. It's fraud
         | plain and simple and they should be severely penalized for
         | lying about the services because "it's too expensive".
        
           | pockybum522 wrote:
           | I would love to see this happen. How do we actually bring a
           | class action or some other thing that effectively means they
           | can't do this anymore?
        
             | cogman10 wrote:
             | This is something that should be under the purview of an
             | agency like the FTC. If you are affected by this you could
             | file a complaint with them.
        
         | derefr wrote:
         | The type of marketer or program manager who comes up with an
         | "unlimited" offering usually has a very limited imagination for
         | exactly how much of something a customer could really use.
         | 
         | These types usually have no sense for what limits their
         | business could actually handle, because none of their current
         | customers are using their service to anything approaching its
         | operational capacity. And they probably don't have any SREs to
         | ask for stress-test data, either. So "unlimited" for them, just
         | means "use it like everyone has already been using it and it'll
         | be flat-rate instead of PAYGO. Or go wild and use 10x or 100x
         | that." It doesn't even occur to them that it's possible that
         | someone could use e.g. 10000x existing usage.
        
       | gundmc wrote:
       | This is silly. The email in the screenshot shows the Google
       | Workspace Enterprise Standard package, which is clearly
       | documented as 5 TB/user limit.
       | 
       | If the complaint is that at some point in the past it was
       | unlimited and Google switched it to have limits, then we can talk
       | about that (and we have in numerous other threads over the last
       | 2+ years).
        
       | tayo42 wrote:
       | Tangentenly related, I thought my Google personal storage for
       | photos and emails was unlimited for free but I've been getting
       | nagging stuff about their 15gb limit now and shutting off my
       | Gmail. Frustrating and feels like I'm being forced into it where
       | the other option is to set up and manage my own photo back ups
       | and hard drives...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-06-22 23:01 UTC)