I need to make a cost model for AWS vs GCP. Currently, our organization is using AWS. Our biggest services used are:
EC2
RDS
Labda
AWS Gateway
S3
Elasticache
Cloudfront
Kinesis
I have very limited knowledge of cloud platforms. However, I have access to:
AWS Simple Monthly Calculator
Google Cloud Platform Pricing Calculator
MAP AWS services to GCP products
I also have access to CloudHealth so that I can get a breakdown of costs per services within our organization.
Of the 8 major services listed above are main usage and costs go to EC2, S3, and RDS.
Our director of engineering mentioned that I should be most concerned with vCPU and memory.
I would appreciate any insight (big or small) that people have into how I can go about creating this model, any other factors I should consider, which functionalities of the two providers for the services are considered historically "better" or cheaper, etc.
Thanks in advance, and any questions people may have, I am more than happy to answer.
-M
You should certainly cost-optimize your resources. It's so easy to create cloud resources that people don't always think about turning things off or right-sizing them.
Looking at your Top 5...
Amazon EC2
The simplest way to save money with Amazon EC2 is to turn off unused resources. You can even stop instances overnight and on the weekend. If they are only used 8 hours per workday, then that is only 40 out of 168 hours, so you can save 75% by turning them off when unused! For example, Dev and Test instances. People have written various types of automated utilities to turn instances on and off based on tags. Try search the Internet for AWS Stopinator.
Another way to save money on Amazon EC2 is to use spot instances. They are a fraction of the price, but have a risk that they might be turned off when demand increases. They are great where it is okay for systems to be terminated sometimes, such as automated testing systems. They are also a great way to supplement existing capacity at a fraction of the price.
If you definitely need the Amazon EC2 instances to keep running all the time, purchase Amazon EC2 Reserved Instances, which also offer a price saving.
Chat with your AWS Account Manager for help with the above options.
Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
Again, Amazon RDS instances can be stopped overnight/on weekends and turned on again when needed. You only pay while the instance is running (plus storage costs).
Examine the CloudWatch metrics for your RDS instances and determine whether they can be downsized without impacting applications. You can even resize them when they are used less (eg over weekends). Everything can be scripted, so you could trigger such downsizing and upsizing on a schedule.
Also look at the Engine used with RDS. Commercial offerings such as Oracle and Microsoft SQL Server are more expensive than open-source offerings like MySQL and PostgreSQL. Yes, your applications might need some changes, but the cost savings can be significant.
AWS Lambda
It is most unusual that Lambda is #3 in your list. In fact, some customers never get a charge for Lambda because it falls in the monthly free usage tier. Having high charges means you're making good use of Lambda (which is saving you EC2 costs), but take a look at which applications are using it the most and see whether they are using it wisely.
When correctly used, a Lambda function should only ever run for a few seconds, so check whether any application seem to be using it outside this pattern.
AWS API Gateway
Once again, these costs tend to be low ($3.50/million calls) so again I'd recommend trying to figure out how this is being used. If you really need that many calls, it would also explain the high Lambda costs. It would probably be more expensive if you were providing such functionality via Amazon EC2.
Amazon S3
Consider using different Storage Classes to reduce your costs. Costs can be reduced by:
Moving infrequently-accessed data to a different storage class
Moving data to One-Zone (if you have a copy of the data elsewhere, so don't need the redundancy)
Archiving infrequently-accessed data to Amazon Glacier, which offers much cheaper storage but does not have instant access
With GCP, you can benefit by receiving discounts such as the Committed Use Discount and the Sustained Use Discount.
With a Committed Use Discount, you can receive a discount of up to 70% if your usage is predictable.
With the Sustained Use Discount, there is an incremental discount if you reach certain usage thresholds.
On your concern with vCPU and memory, you may use predefined machine types. They are cheaper than custom machine types.
Lastly, you can also test the charges by trying out the Google Cloud Platform Free Tier.
Related
Our Company has a Software Product consists of Web App, Android and iOS App.
we have more then 350 clients, that is we have more then 350 databases(MYSQL) of each client and one code file repository(PHP Codeigniter). When new client purchase our software we just copy the the old empty database and client is able to use the software. this is our architecture.
Now we are planing to shift to AWS but we do not know which AWS service we really need for this type of architecture
We have Codeigniter 3.1 version, PHP 7 and MYSQL.
You can implement this sort of system on a single EC2 instance, simply installing the same software as you have on your current server. However in this case you are likely better off to host it somewhere cheaper than AWS.
However, what I recommend is that you implement it using RDS, EC2, S3 and Cloudfront.
RDS
I recommend to run your database on RDS:
the database server competes over completely different resources than PHP, so if you run into performance problems, it is impossible to figure out what is happening when database and PHP are on the same instance. A lack of CPU can lead to a lack of memory and vice versa.
built-in point-in-time recovery for up to 35 days has saved my bacon many many times and is great when you have a bug that is hard to reproduce or when someone (you) has accidentally deleted a large amount of data
On top of this I recommend to also go for Aurora for MySQL instead of MySQL RDS, especially as I expect your database size on disk to be smaller than 50GB:
On MySQL RDS you need to commission at least 100GB of disk to get good enough performance for production. 100GB gives you 100x50kb per second on the EBS disks that are used.
By comparison, on AWS Aurora you get the read performance of 6 different storage locations without having to commit to any amount of disk space. This saves money and is more performant
Aurora is also much faster in restoring point in time as well as with "dumb" queries, ie. table scans.
EC2
I recommend to look at nothing older than the t3, c5 or m5 instances, as they have the new "nitro hypervisor" and are significantly faster, while being cheaper. From experience you can go down a notch from your existing CPU count with these instances
If you can use c6/m6/t4 instances
I also found c5a and equivalents to be just as performant
AWS recommends to always use auto-scaling, but if you are coming a single server somewhere else you are already winning because you can restore within minutes.
Once you hit $600 per month in EC2 charges, definitely look at autoscaling. Virtually every webapp can be written in a way that allows for a server to be replaced at any point in time. With auto scaling you can then use Spot instances at 50-90% discount for your 2nd/3rd etc instance and save serious money.
S3
Store all customer provided files on S3, DO NOT get into a shared file system.
This is much cheaper than any disk or file system and has numerous automation features, such as versioning, cross-region backup, archiving, event triggers etc.
do not ever make your bucket publicly accessible.
Cloudfront
The key benefit of storing all customer provided files on S3 is that you can serve them with Cloudfront without paying for CPU. Cloudfront only charges for traffic delivered. S3 only charges for space used. Every file delivered through Cloudfront does not use your server's CPU, sockets, network bandwidth. On top of this transfer from EC2 to S3 and from S3 to Cloudfront is free of charge. You are only charged for the traffic you already had to pay for anyway.
You need to secure your clients file properly with Signed Urls or Signed Cookies. For this you can either create separate S3 buckets for each client or one single bucket.
Bonus: SQS
Many things in web application do not need to be done right now. They can wait a bit, sometimes a couple of 100 milliseconds, sometimes minutes or hours.
Anything that can wait, I recommend start implementing a background process that reads from an SQS queue for it. Your web application will need minimal time to push the work required and its parameters into an SQS queue. Your background process can then work on it in (rough) order of entry into the queue. When you use your normal web servers to process the background queues you are already getting a better distribution of server load over time. This is because you cannot control the amount of web requests, but you can control the speed in how you process background items (to a degree of course).
Later, when you have a lot of background processing and a lot of traffic, you can consider using different servers for background processing.
There are also lots of ways of how you can hook other event driven code onto the items that go into your queue, including monitoring for limits exceeded for certain items etc.
I am completely new to the implementation of cloud solutions. I've just started taking AWS training courses.
But I already have a very fundamental question about the flow of development in cloud projects:
How do you go about developing solutions without incurring costs? I know that there are free tiers, but in practice you need a lot of unfree elements. Especially when working with infrastructure-as-code approaches (e.g. CloudFormation), it can happen that every time you try out the templates, costs can be incurred immediately.
Is there maybe something like a sandbox mode or how else do you go about it in practice?
Outside of the AWS Free Tier you will be billed for creating services.
The best way to keep costs as low as possible is to combing the lowest priced settings (such as instance class) with removing resources you're not using after you're complete. I understand that this will cost, however many resources are now moving to per second billing (where you normally have to pay for at least the first minute) so the cost is kept low.
Additionally when dealing with some services (such as EC2, ECS, Fargate and ECR) you can make use of spot instances to pay sometimes as low as 10% of the original cost which will help to reduce these resources.
To ensure you can recreate resources when you want them use infrastructure as code to reroll out as you need the resources (CloudFormation or Terraform are great offerings for this).
Finally be on the lookout for AWS conferences, they are a great way to pickup AWS credits for attending which will offset your bill against most AWS services.
Hi StackOverflow community,
I need your help in understanding what is the difference between AWS Billing and Cost Management and AWS cost explorer.
I am not getting the difference.
Thank you very much in advance for your help.
regards
At an initial glance without getting deep into both it can cause confusion, but I'll try to break them down below.
AWS Billing and Cost Management provides a summarised view of spending i.e. what you spent so far this month, and the predicted end of month bill, this is quite static and gives you a high level overview of spending. In addition you can configure your billing details from here. All of these features are free to use with no charge for accessing the interface.
AWS Cost explorer on the other hand is a paid service ($0.01 per query). By using cost explorer you can dig down into the finer details of expenditure, such as on a region, service, usage type or even tag based level. Using this you can identify costs by targeting your query to be specific enough to identify these charges. Additionally you can make use of hourly billing to get the most accurate upto date billing
According to you, what is the best options for this questions involving either cost explorer or billing dashboard?
A company observes an increase in Amazon EC2 costs in its most recent bill. The billing team notices unwanted vertical scaling of instance types for a couple of EC2 instances. A solutions architect needs to create a graph comparing the last 2 months of EC2 costs and perform an in-depth analysis to identify the root cause of the vertical scaling.
How should the solutions architect generate the information with the LEAST operational overhead?
A. Use AWS Budgets to create a budget report and compare EC2 costs based on instance types.
B. Use Cost Explorer's granular filtering feature to perform an in-depth analysis of EC2 costs based on instance types.
C. Use graphs from the AWS Billing and Cost Management dashboard to compare EC2 costs based on instance types for the last 2 months.
D. Use AWS Cost and Usage Reports to create a report and send it to an Amazon S3 bucket. Use Amazon QuickSight with Amazon S3 as a source to generate an interactive graph based on instance types.
I am wanting to deploy a Django webapp with a PostgreSQL database to AWS Elastic Beanstalk using this tutorial, but I am so confused about pricing. It says it uses services in the AWS Free Tier, but those seem to be limited to a certain number of hours a month, so how do I make sure I don't go above that threshold? And how do I make sure I'm only using free services? They even require a card on file, so it seems really hard to make sure I don't get charged.
You can do the following configuration to make sure you use AWS Elastic Beankstalk for one year free.
Use only Micro instances for the WebServer and RDS instance.
Limit the scaling of the WebServer maximum to 1 or use Standalone deployment without autoscaling.
When selecting storage, use less than 30GB for EBS and don't enable Provision Throughput.
Apart from these, there are usage base costs for Network, EBS IOPS & etc which includes a free quota and the cost is not considerable when it comes to light use cases.
The AWS Free Tier allows AWS accounts to use a certain amount of services for no charge. Any usage beyond the free tier limits will result in a charge on your credit card.
The Free Tier is intended to provide a trial of AWS services. It is not intended for production use, nor is there any guaranteed way to stay within the free limits. It is up to you to monitor your usage.
There is no such thing as a totally free AWS account.
I have found "Cost Management Preferences" -> "Receive Free Tier Usage Alerts" setting in Billing preferences menu. Hopefully this will be enough for a small personal projects with low usage. I would guess it is not enough for large projects since this is only a notification.
In short, you can absolutely make sure that your app stays free, just not from within the AWS interface. You'll have to use your own usage monitoring to ensure you stay within the free limits as others state.
As Ashan said, this is a pretty silly approach since fees are nominal and the alternative is a loss of service, however, AWS does offer APIs to help you do this through CloudWatch.
CloudWatch exposes pretty much all of the billable metrics on a service-by-service basis, for example here are the metrics for EC2, and here are the metrics for S3. After starting your services through beanstalk, just look up all the services you're using via the billing page of the AWS console, look up the CloudWatch APIs for each, then check them.
At least for EC2, there are even customizable alarms and actions, including shutting down the instance. See the Monitoring tab at the bottom of the EC2 console. Not sure, but you might have to manually throw status updates to their status system for some of the other metrics. If so, it's not that difficult. You'd set up an access key for some IAM identity so you can check CloudWatch stuff from command line. Then, you'd write a watchdog script to run on that instance using AWSCLI to regularly ping CloudWatch and call your shutdown code or modify your status if you're over some percentage of your quota.
every once in a while i read/hear about AWS and now i tried reading the docs.
But such docs seem to be written for people who already know which AWS they need to use and only search for how it can be used.
So, for myself, to understand AWS better i try to sketch a hypothetical Webapplication with a few questions.
The apps purpose is to modify content like videos or images. So a user has some kind of webinterface where he can upload his files, do some settings and a server grabs the file and modifies it (e.g. reencoding). The Service also extracts the audio track of a video and trys to index the spoken words so the customer can search within his videos. (well its just hypothetical)
So my questions:
given my own domain 'oneofmydomains.com' is it possible to host the complete webinterface on AWS? i thought about using GWT to create the interface and just deliver the JS/images via AWS, but which one, simple storage? what about some kind of index.html, is there an EC2 instance needed to host a webserver which has to run 24/7 causing costs?
now the user has the interface with a login form, is it possible to manage logins with an AWS? here i also think about an EC2 instance hosting a database, but it would also cause costs and im not sure if there is a better way?
the user has logged in and uploads a file. which storage solution could be used to save the customers original and modified content?
now the user wants to browse the status of his uploads, this means i need some kind of ACL, so that the customer only sees his own files. do i need to use a database (e.g. EC2) for this, or does amazon provide some kind of ACL, so the GWT webinterface will be secure without any EC2?
the customers files are reencoded and the audio track is indexed. so he wants to search for a video. Which service could be used to create and maintain the index for each customer?
hope someone can give a few answers so i understand AWS better on how one could use it
thx!
Amazon AWS offers a whole ecosystem of services which should cover all aspects of a given architecture, from hosting to data storage, or messaging, etc. Whether they're the best fit for purpose will have to be decided on a case by case basis. Seeing as your question is quite broad I'll just cover some of the basics of what AWS has to offer and what the different types of services are for:
EC2 (Elastic Cloud Computing)
Amazon's cloud solution, which is basically the same as older virtual machine technology but the 'cloud' offers additional knots and bots such as automated provisioning, scaling, billing etc.
you pay for what your use (by hour), for the basic (single CPU, 1.7GB ram) would prob cost you just under $3 a day if you run it 24/7 (on a windows instance that is)
there's a number of different OS to choose from including linux and windows, linux instances are cheaper to run without the license cost associated with windows
once you're set up the server to be the way you want, including any server updates/patches, you can create your own AMI (Amazon machine image) which you can then use to bring up another identical instance
however, if all your html are baked into the image it'll make updates difficult, so normal approach is to include a service (windows service for instance) which will pull the latest deployment package from a storage (see S3 later) service and update the site at start up and at intervals
there's the Elastic Load Balancer (which has its own cost but only one is needed in most cases) which you can put in front of all your web servers
there's also the Cloud Watch (again, extra cost) service which you can enable on a per instance basis to help you monitor the CPU, network in/out, etc. of your running instance
you can set up AutoScalers which can automatically bring up or terminate instances based on some metric, e.g. terminate 1 instance at a time if average CPU utilization is less than 50% for 5 mins, bring up 1 instance at a time if average CPU goes beyond 70% for 5 mins
you can use the instances as web servers, use them to run a DB, or a Memcache cluster, etc. choice is yours
typically, I wouldn't recommend having Amazon instances talk to a DB outside of Amazon because of the round trip is much longer, the usual approach is to use SimpleDB (see below) as the database
the AmazonSDK contains enough classes to help you write some custom monitor/scaling service if you ever need to, but the AWS console allows you to do most of your configuration anyway
SimpleDB
Amazon's non-relational, key-value data store, compared to a traditional database you tend to pay a penalty on per query performance but get high scalability without having to do any extra work.
you pay for usage, i.e. how much work it takes to execute your query
extremely scalable by default, Amazon scales up SimpleDB instances based on traffic without you having to do anything, AND any control for that matter
data are partitioned in to 'domains' (equivalent to a table in normal SQL DB)
data are non-relational, if you need a relational model then check out Amazon RDB, I don't have any experience with it so not the best person to comment on it..
you can execute SQL like query against the database still, usually through some plugin or tool, Amazon doesn't provide a front end for this at the moment
be aware of 'eventual consistency', data are duplicated on multiple instances after Amazon scales up your database, and synchronization is not guaranteed when you do an update so it's possible (though highly unlikely) to update some data then read it back straight away and get the old data back
there's 'Consistent Read' and 'Conditional Update' mechanisms available to guard against the eventual consistency problem, if you're developing in .Net, I suggest using SimpleSavant client to talk to SimpleDB
S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Amazon's storage service, again, extremely scalable, and safe too - when you save a file on S3 it's replicated across multiple nodes so you get some DR ability straight away.
you only pay for data transfer
files are stored against a key
you create 'buckets' to hold your files, and each bucket has a unique url (unique across all of Amazon, and therefore S3 accounts)
CloudBerry S3 Explorer is the best UI client I've used in Windows
using the AmazonSDK you can write your own repository layer which utilizes S3
Sorry if this is a bit long winded, but that's the 3 most popular web services that Amazon provides and should cover all the requirements you've mentioned. We've been using Amazon AWS for some time now and there's still some kinks and bugs there but it's generally moving forward and pretty stable.
One downside to using something like aws is being vendor locked-in, whilst you could run your services outside of amazon and in your own datacenter or moving files out of S3 (at a cost though), getting out of SimpleDB will likely to represent the bulk of the work during migration.