Azure, Google Cloud or AWS

[Deleted member 308634]

We are looking to move our hosting which includes the hosting of a SAAS program which is used by multiple customers to something more scalable. We will most likely be looking to get two virtual servers, one to run Windows server with IIS and another to run Window server with SQL. Does anyone have any experience with Azure, Google Cloud or AWS for running virtual servers? I have used Azure before and it is very quick but I am leaning towards maybe Google Cloud because I think it is most likely cheaper than the other two.

 

[arnydnxluk]

I prefer Google Cloud over the other two, mostly because the UI is actually bearable but also because, although they offer less services, those they do offer are well designed with better docs in my experience. I also trust Google more when it comes to reliability, especially after witnessing events such as Azure's recent outage.

That said, for a couple of basic VM's, any will do the job, but all are overpriced IMO. I would usually recommend DigitalOcean or Linode for this kind of set up, both now using live migration for maintenance too just like the big clouds, but neither offer Windows unfortunately.

 

[Deleted member 308634]

Thanks Mike, we are currently with Eukhost but we are at the limit of resources that we can have with their virtual servers, the next thing they offer are dedicated servers but they also have an upper limit on RAM, CPU etc and we don't want to have to keep going through the pain of migrating to new servers when we reach the limit, hence why we want to move to something where we can keep upgrading the server as our customer base grows. Outages and any downtime would of course be very bad news because our customers rely on the software to run their businesses so we need to make sure that where we move is going to be very reliable.

 

[dexterash]

Quick question: who's eating up the resources? The DB server? Have you thought of multiple virtual-servers / scaling it up like this?

Also, there is always the solution of Load Balancer/Proxy in front + multiple App Servers after them + multiple DB Servers.

Pushing hardware resources to a single instance/server isn't the smartest choice... just my 2 cents.

 

[Deleted member 308634]

I did say I was looking to get 2 servers, one for the databases and one for the application.

 

[Vin Jauhal]

We used to do a lot of hosting in our own datacenters and now moving everything off to Microsoft Azure. Not many people know however, that you can save 76% of the cost of your virtual machines if you take advantage of reserved instances with hybrid.

A CSP partner and can provide your Windows Server subscription licences so you get to save..!

P.S. For transparency, we are Microsoft Gold Datacenter and CSP Tier-1 partners, so have a lot of experience of hosted VM's!

Hope helpful!

 

[Deleted member 308634]

With the reserved instances and hybrid don't you have to pay upfront for the server rather than monthly?

 

[arnydnxluk]

Google also does committed use discounts:

https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/instances/signing-up-committed-use-discounts

You don't have to pay upfront, just commit to a monthly amount over a period of time.

I find network costs to be more of a concern with the 'big three' but Google does also offer a lower priced network tier these days (still expensive in comparison to bundled allowances).

 

[Deleted member 308634]

Thanks Mike, we are now leaning towards SQL as a service rather than having a virtual server running SQL due to not having to worry about managing the server such as Windows updates and backup etc. I used to work as a network engineer so I’m capable of managing the server but I think it is just another thing to worry about that could go wrong. As far as I can tell it is only Azure that offer SQL server and our application is all based on Microsoft technology so I think that might be the best choice. It is just a case of working out the complicated pricing structure that comes with going down this route to see how much this is likely to cost us on a monthly basis.

 

[Vin Jauhal]

You can also get a SQL VM as a reserved instance with Hybrid Benefit to give you a discount too, but SQL as a service may be different as it's not actually a dedicated VM.

 

[Deleted member 308634]

Thanks Vin, I would assume that SQL VM would still need us to manage the operating system such as Windows updates etc?

 

[mattk]

As you are experiencing, hosting a VM (or IaaS as it is usually referred to) is very expensive and really doesn't provide much benefit.

If you move to SQL PaaS then the cost savings can be significant however it may require some re-work of your application depending on whether you have used any features of SQL Server which are not available on the PaaS solution.

Similarly, Azure offer App Server PaaS which again, is much cheaper than simply running a Windows VM as a web server.

There is a lot of info online, however I have yet to find a reliable comparison tool for SQL PaaS vs. SQL Server.

 

[Vin Jauhal]

Yes, a SQL VM would still require management.

I also agree with Mattk.

 

[Deleted member 308634]

Thanks Matt, our application doesn't use any particular features that shouldn't be available on the PaaS offering I don't believe.

 

[Deleted member 308634]

Am I correct in thinking that it is only Azure that offer SQL server Paas and that AWS and Google only offer other database options such as MySQL?

 

[mattk]

Yes, Google Cloud offer SQL Server VMs, but not the SQL PaaS that Microsoft do.

 

[Deleted member 308634]

Yes that is what I thought, I guess that means that Azure is probably going to be the most suitable option for us.

 

[mattk]

Azure will definitely be the cheapest if you can leverage SQL PaaS.

A SQL Server VM is much of a muchness regardless of the cloud provider.

 

[Deleted member 308634]

Thanks Matt, we will look into the options and try to work out what specification we will need to go for based on what we are currently running.

 

[lazypbx]

Am I correct in thinking that it is only Azure that offer SQL server Paas and that AWS and Google only offer other database options such as MySQL?

If you want an SQL server on AWS you can run your own SQL server on an EC2 instance or Aurora - https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/

(if you want to stick with MS SQL you can do that on RDS (Amazons relational database service) too)

I think it's difficult to make direct cost comparisons with cloud computing, so much depends on how you configure your architecture and what type of application you're trying to serve. You may be better off looking at which cloud interface you prefer, and if there are specific requirements certain cloud providers can't serve you with. AWS definitely 'has it all' with a plethora of components, but it's probably a best fit if your have a relatively complex application requirement and need a global reach .. Vendor 'lock-in' should also be in the back of your mind for any solution choice.

 

[ukbf0001]

Glad I found this post - as I wanted to ask the same question.

I have a chance to play with 1 but not all 3 of the main cloud providers. So Google Cloud, Amazon AWS or Microsoft Azure ? - my side project is to setup a Windows server - running IIS, a few users, secure it - and that's about it and to make it resilient ie failover services etc - this is not for anything live

From what Ive read and seen - AWS offers the most functionality but the GUI takes some getting used to but is also the cheapest.

I would love to hear what other think and have experienced

 

[lazypbx]

My experience is with AWS (certified architect) so I can't comment on others. AWS is the leading cloud provider, they have a vast number of services, the service offering is incredibly comprehensive.
Your requirements are very simple, you need an EC2 server running IIS, that's no problem. If you don't think you'll need anything more than that (ie. you aren't interested in changing architecture and utilising other AWS products) then it's probably not for you.

So;
1) Can AWS do what you want - Check
2) Can you rely on AWS - Check
3) Is it the simplest management - No. AWS is geared at professionals. If you just want to get an IIS server running it is not 'difficult', but I would imagine there are much much simpler options.
4) Is it the cheapest.... how long is a piece of string. Pricing is complex, I would say as complex as server management. Have a look at their 'simple' calculator. -https://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html

Pricing is hard to compare because there are so many variables (type of CPU's, type of storage, type of db etc..). You do have to be very careful how you select products, for example
IOPS's optimised products are expensive ... be careful or you can get a surprise at the end of the month!

I would say cloud computing is best leveraged when you look at re-architecting your solution to match less traditional (older) approaches - ie. using serverless architecture etc..

 

[ukbf0001]

Thanks - for my side project - Im simply trying to get up to speed with which ever platform is the more widely used. My background was devops (a long time ago), things have a changed a little since my day - when we used to do it all ourselves - from unpacking the kit , feeding the physical servers DVDs to build a server and then configure the routers and firewalls etc.
So I'm trying to go through the process of creating an environment with all the standard services in use and then play with it for a bit.
I'm also now looking at Heroku - just to add further muddle to all the various options.

 

[lazypbx]

AWS is the most widely used, it would be the most valuable to obtain experience on (in my opinion). The AWS equivalent of Heroku (platform as a service) is really Elastic Beanstalk. At a 'lower level' you should look at AWS lambda for serverless computing.

 

[Deleted member 308634]

We went with Azure in the end and have moved our databases to a SQL elastic pool as this looked like the best option for our setup, we still have a virtual server with another hosting company but will be looking to move this to Azure at some point because it makes sense to have it all in the same place. We never tried the Google and AWS options because we needed SQL server for our setup and an elastic pool was the best option for this. If it is just for testing I know Azure give £150 free credit and some services are free for 12 months and others always free, I’m pretty sure one of the things they offer free for 12 months is a very basic low spec virtual server so this could be worth looking into, if you need anymore help let me know.

 

[lazypbx]

We never tried the Google and AWS options because we needed SQL server for our setu

FYI - AWS also offer MS SQL server under their managed AWS RDS (Relational Database Service) portfolio. If you don't want to use a managed service you can run your own SQL server on an EC2 virtual machine.

 

[Deleted member 308634]

FYI - AWS also offer MS SQL server under their managed AWS RDS (Relational Database Service) portfolio. If you don't want to use a managed service you can run your own SQL server on an EC2 virtual machine.

We needed to use Azure's "Elastic pool" option for our databases because it allows you to add multiple databases to it and you do not get charged per database, we have customers that sign up for a free trial so they will each have a database that is created and we do not want to be charged for each database, taking a brief look it seems as though you get charged per database with AWS RDS.

 

[lazypbx]

taking a brief look it seems as though you get charged per database with AWS RDS.

That is correct. However you're charged per database instance hour and the price would be very low for a trial database (starts at $0.024 per hour in region EU London according to RDS pricing page). So each free trial might cost you about $5 run over 10 days. There's also data transfer considerations, I don't know how Azure do it but AWS charges for various data transfers in or out.

It goes to show with cloud computing you've really got to run a TCO as so much depends on your particular setup, this is also what makes comparing cloud providers difficult.

 

[Deleted member 308634]

Considering our trials run for 30 days and then we do not immediately remove the trial database straight away so it could be there for 60 days or more that could work out to be about $30 (or £30 as we are in the UK) compared to the Azure Elastic Pool where we do not pay anything extra for trial databases that sit there doing nothing. Also as far as I am aware we do not have to pay for data transfers.

As you said it really depends on your setup as to which provider will be the most cost effective, there is no one solution that will suit every company.