hckrnws

I’m my experience and based on writeups like this: Google hates having customers.

Someone decided they have to have a public cloud, so they did it, but they want to keep clients away with a 3 meter pole.

My AWS account manager is someone I am 100% certain would roll in the mud with me if necessary. Would sleep in the floor with us if we asked in a crisis.

Our Google cloud representatives make me sad because I can see that they are even less loved and supported by Google than us. It’s sad seeing someone trying to convince their company to sell and actually do a good job providing service. It’s like they are setup to fail.

Microsoft guys are just bulletproof and excel in selling, providing a good service and squeezing all your money out of your pockets and you are mortally convinced it’s for your own good. Also have a very strange cloud… thing.

As for the railway company going metal, well, I have some 15 years of experience with it. I’ll never, NEVER, EVER return to it. It’s just not worth it. But I guess you’ll have to discover it by yourselves. This is the way.

You soon discover what in freaking world is Google having so much trouble with. Just make sure you really really love and really really want to sell service to people, instead of building borgs and artificial brains and you’ll do 100x better.

My AWS account manager took me fishing. That’s what you get for a >$1M/yr spend. I don’t sense they would roll in mud with me, which is kind of incredible. I wonder how much you need to spend to get into mud rolling territory?

AWS support in general is extremely good in my experience. (We pay for whatever the tier below Enterprise is called, I think it costs 10% of your spend)

I’ve been on 4 hour screenshare with AWS engineers working through some infrastructure issues in the past, and we only spend $100k/yr.

Even at the $100k/yr spend level, AWS regularly reaches out with offers to try new services they’re launching for free. We’ve said “sure” a couple times, and AWS shows up with 4-6 people on their end of the call (half of them engineers).

In the past 10 years, we’ve had maybe 2-3 emergency issues per year, and every time I’m able to get a really smart person on a call within 5 minutes.

This is the #1 thing I’d be concerned about losing if we did colo or bare metal with cheaper providers.

My experience with AWS support has been downright freaky.

With other vendors, when I call a support line with an obscure issue that maybe only I hit in the whole world I fully expect to explain it to an overseas call centre drone with a poor voice line and rudimentary English. Then I expect to have to repeatedly escalate over months and be told “We can’t reproduce this glaringly obvious bug, closed.” That’s ignoring the series of very closely related family of issues I dug up in the process of troubleshooting. Which they continue to ignore because it’s “out of scope” for the ticket. “Open a new ticket and go through the pain again, peasant!”

With AWS my experience has always been “I’ve fixed that right up for you, is there anything else you’d like help with?”. Often after mere minutes!

I’m usually left speechless, ready to go on a well-practiced tirade of how “We’re spending millions on this crap and none of it works properly!”, but instead I just sit there gawping like a fish out of water, stammer “No, thank you, that was it.” and hang up in shame.

I just don’t understand why no other enterprise on Earth seems to have support this good. What’s the thing holding them back!? Maybe they assume that good support works only for this tiny upstart org called Amazon that will clearly never amount to anything!

What kind of issues you had that they could fix them immediately? I assume this is not about configuration issues on your part, but maybe I’m mistaken

I was one of the first users of the AWS Elastic File System because I had an ideal use-case for it exactly when it was first introduced. Everything worked just fine for 30 days, and then the web site basically locked up. It turned out that EFS had an initial "grace period" during which IOPS were unlimited, then it would become proportional to the GB of stored data. We had just a few hundred megabytes, so it worked out to something like 0.4 IOPS. Slower than a floppy drive! Support immediately reset the grace period for us, flipped some internal flag to make it not expire, and then a few months later the product itself was fixed to have a reasonable minimum IOPS per account irrespective of the data volume. At the time there were zero mentions of any of this on Google, I must have been the first few people to hit this issue after general availability.

A direct comparison is a nearly identical issue with Azure SQL Server Managed Instance. It too had IOPS proportional to the size of each file of a database. We migrated a database that used many small partitions (per month I think?), each with its own small file. Its performance was horrendous, easily 100x slower than on-prem. The support team could barely speak English, got repeatedly confused about the product (Azure SQL Database != SQL Managed Instance), couldn't understand the problem, and even insisted that totally broken performance "was a feature" and we should redesign "our database". Sure buddy, I'll go tell the third-party vendor that, meanwhile Microsoft themselves insisted we should migrate all of our legacy databases to this garbage. We did, it took months, cost a ton of money, and now it basically doesn't work! We abandoned the product, as have many other people. At the time, this had been an issue for many years with Microsoft engineering basically whistling at the ceiling as they cheerfully ignored it. More than a year later they fixed it, but you've got to wonder what else is still wrong with it that support can't help with.

There's more examples, but that pair stuck in my mind because they had the same root cause but wildly different outcomes.

Very interesting, thanks for the write up!

I've had similar experiences with Google as well. Reaching out with new services, hours with some of their technical people, invites to meetups, free credits, an extremely pleasing and responsive account manager. We spend a few hundred thousand dollars a year with them. The actual software is top notch. Most haven't been just turn it on and forget it.

Yeah, I'm a little biased here as I now work at Google, but I joined in part due the positive experience we had migrating from bare metal to Google Cloud.

We went through two rounds of migration. First placing our data warehouse, where BigQuery was just so far past Redshift it was almost a joke. Then we wanted to move to a cloud provider with good container orchestration and GKE was obviously better than AKS and all of Amazon's proprietary orchestrators. It was pretty good.

Customer support varied between excellent and ~fine. Amazon customer support throughout that time (we had a few small bits on Amazon) was fine, but less enthusiastic about winning our business.

Not long after a friend of mine reported a security incident to AWS, something that looked like Amazon privileged access to their data, and it took months to get a response from them, and it was never an adequate explanation for what looked in all ways like a hack.

Yep. BQ,GKE, and at a metalevel the simpler project structure -all have been great. I cannot still fully understand the org hierarchy that AWS has yet.

> ... wonder how much you need to spend to get into mud rolling territory?

When I was at AWS, our team used to (religiously / proactively) keep track of customers having multiple complaints, especially repeat complaints (all of which manifested in to some form of downtime for them). Regardless of their spend, these customers ended up getting the "white glove" treatment, which otherwise is reserved for (potential) top spenders (though, engs are mostly oblivious to the numbers).

This is besides the fact that some account managers & support engs may indeed escalate (quite easily at that) to push product eng teams to really & immediately pay that tech debt that's hurting their customers.

That was probably in the time of Bezos...Now with the new MBA CEO, it seems the rule now is to deprecate services without even putting out a newsletter or blog post. Customers just find out when they click on the Console...

> That was probably in the time of Bezos... Now with the new MBA CEO

Andy Jassy? Previously, he ran AWS for a decade and a half.

What services are you talking about?

https://simonwillison.net/2024/Jul/30/aws-codecommit-quietly...

https://horovits.medium.com/disruption-ahead-aws-quietly-axi...

1. AWS and their account managers are relatively frugal compared to other enterprise sales teams. As far as I can tell, this is a good thing.

2. More

3. AWS has this idea of “customer obsession.” They will spend an absurd amount of time trying to understand your business and make sense of it.

> "My AWS account manager took me fishing. That’s what you get for a >$1M/yr spend."

I assume that's written into the contract somewhere and not a kickback, right?

It wasn’t quite as gauche as I made it sound in my comment. The fishing invitation was extended to a few customers and was an official AWS sponsored event.

Such a middle-class concern. The elites live on kickbacks.

Even interns have to go through training on how accepting on $30 gift might be inappropriate and sway their terribly important judgement..

Hell, I'd roll in the mud if that's what it takes to upsell $10k worth of compute to $1M.

I worked for a large company that committed to a >$400M spend with AWS. Even though I owned a very tiny piece of that pie, I could get my account manager and a technical resource on the phone at pretty much any time.

> My AWS account manager took me fishing.

Unless the company is yours or it's a private company that can raise a compliance issue...Any other gifts?

> Microsoft (...) have a very strange cloud… thing.

Risking a going off on a tangent, this is something I rarely see discussed but is perhaps one of the main problems with Azure. The whole cloud service feels like something someone oblivious to cloud computing would design if all they knew was renting bare metal servers. It's cloud computing in a way that completely defeats the whole concept of cloud computing.

Same feeling here. It's like they wanted a way to "play datacenter in the browser", but then asked 30 different teams to do it on their own, and only have them come together after they are all done to put the pieces together.

Then find out it's not good at all and go "oh well, I guess we'll polish it over in the UI" (not knowing that no serious scale works with a UI).

If I can't have AWS I'll make do with GCP. But if someone wants to go full Azure, I'll find work elsewhere. Screw that. Life is too short to work with bad technology.

I don't think that's it. I think Microsoft wanted a way to migrate already Microsoft workloads to something they could more aggressively bill by the GB or second or user or whatever revenue extraction metric you're down with. Basically, O365 extended to the entire M$ ecosystem. And for that it seems...er...ok. We've migrated a couple of dozen major M$ workloads from on-prem reasonably easily, and a bunch of little ones. Lots of skillsets transferred easily...I vividly recall talking a really fine SQLServer admin off the ledge when the "move to cloud" mandate came out who's now like "I had to learn a few new things, but it's pretty much like what I was doing before". Big win.

But then everyone said "a cloud should do X and Y and Z", and they try to bolt X/Y/Z on to the side with various levels of success. And now all the app owners who aren't native M$ have declared Azure not fit for purpose and picked up the torches and pitchforks. So we're going to support AWS, too.

Seriously wondering what you guys experienced with Azure. Never had an issue and prefer it over AWS.

Same here, I prefer Azure to AWS and I’ve spent multiple years with each

I suppose it depends on what you do with it and what you need.

Most of it is not an individual experience or 'event', just bad design with bad results. I'll try to describe some global ones:

One of the most bizarre things is the crazy bad resource hierarchy. There are multiple overlapping and incompatible ones. Resources, networks, storage, IAM, billing and org, none of it in a single universal hierarchy. It seems to mirror the idiosyncrasies of legacy enterprise organisations with their fiefdoms, instead of a cloud.

The next useless thing is how you just cannot use what you need when you need it in whatever way you want it. Almost all services are hyper-segmented requiring various premium tiers instead of them being universally available.

I get it, it's a great way to bundle things people don't want and extract as much money out of them, but that only really works if people have no alternative. And those two form the bad architecture/bad technology trifecta with this third one: a lot of services, maybe most of them, seem like some sort of 2005 model where a resource is backed by nothing more than some random managed VM in the backend, with all the problems (failure modes, inconsistent behaviour etc) that come with that model.

Perhaps the reason for those things is simple: Microsoft wanted a way to extract more money from their customers and lock them in even more. Moving workloads to Azure meant something different for them than it did for the rest of the world: you used to have a lage army of common windows sysadmin jobs where there was a lot of local control and local management loops, but when you move that to a common template in someone else's datacenter (Azure, essentially) you can ditch most of those loops and people. Granted, they created those local controls/loops themselves to get a school-to-work microsoft client pipeline (same as say, Cisco or oracle), but I doubt there is any new markets to cater to in that way. Since people tend to be the most expensive and most risky part of a business, being able to take more of them out of the loop, making more of them optional or making them more expendable/remote is a (short-term) positive thing in the spreadsheets of most MBAs, which is who most large companies cater to after all. This did of course backfire and we now have the same quantity of jobs but instead of sysadmin you get 'azure engineer' which is more of a crossover between operational helpdesk and technical application manager. But everyone wins: during your exodus you can sell it as modernisation, when you remove that on-prem burden you can shift your CAPEX and OPEX around, your quarter looks better when you can reduce headcount, and once your bonus is in, you can put some job postings out for the people you are now missing.

Technology-wise, the only thing that really changed was the ways in which people could cut corners. Some corners are pre-cut, while others are uncuttable. API-wise, it's a crapshoot, a turd attempted to be polished by a webui that hides the maelstrom of questionable residue below the surface.

Re: "There are multiple overlapping and incompatible ones. Resources, networks, storage, IAM, billing and org, none of it in a single universal hierarchy." - hierarchy is based on subscription / resource group. Billing is usually done with tags (you can add a tag like "CostCenter": "Online Marketing CostCenter1234")

Re: "hyper-segmented requiring various premium tiers instead of them being universally available" - premium tier usually means your service runs on its own Azure VMs; while the other tiers your service shares a VM with other customers. The first choice is more expensive obviously and I prefer to pay for that service only if I need it.

BTW - Azure supports bare metal Linux and Windows. So if these pesky Azure services get in your way you can always go back to your on-prem version, where instead of running your workload on your own VMs you run it on Azure VMs.

Preface: don't worry, this is not a rant aimed at you, I just enjoy off-the-cuff writing sometimes ;-)

For your first Re:

That would have been great, but that is just more inconsistency. Some resources exist in resource groups, but some don't and you cannot nest them. IAM has the same problem, you always have to create elements on two sides since Entra is not really an Azure resource, it's parallel to your tenant. Policies for Azure don't exist in Entra, but in MGs and Subscriptions and RGs they do. Those don't affect Entra of course, so now you have two different non-interacting policy trees, except you can reference Entra principals. But not if you want to target STS instead. But you can't always target STS, because that would mean you wouldn't have to buy a premium version of IAM (be it P1 or P2 or PAM). Technically RGs would have never needed to exist if they had their tagging and policy system available from day one.

For your second Re:

Instead of having 1 class of groups or containers, there are many non-interoperable versions. You know who doesn't do that? Everyone else. Same for say, IAM. Principals are principals. Tokens are tokens. Want to authorise something? One universal policy language that can target principals, tokens or a combination. Want to use metadata? That's available too, including tags. Applies on all resources the same way as well. Sure, you'll still not find perfect consistency (looking at you, S3, with a 3rd extra policy option), but there is no artificial distinction or segmentation. There is no 'conditional access' product since we would just call that a policy. There is no 'PAM' product since again, that's just a policy. There is no 'premium' because all features are always available, to everyone. And you know the best part? It's not a parallel tenant construction, it's just part of the same namespace of all other resources. Even Google's weird identity setup treats it all as the same organisational namespace.

It's not like Microsoft is unaware of all of this, they are digging Azure-flavoured graves (for legacy setups) faster than Google can expand their own graveyard, and some features that were really late to the party (like MGs, RBAC, PIM, tagging scope with policies as well) are not surprising to see. But repairing a large fractured product like Azure is iffy at best. Time will tell.

For the BTW: yeah, everyone can in the end run virtual machines, but a cloud just to run some VMs is a real good way to burn money. The value proposition of a cloud is elasticity and consistent API-driven resources (which includes IAM, policy language and tagging). A web UI that starts and stops a hidden VM is essentially just a VPS and plesk straight out of 2005.

From the way persistence is implemented on Azure, you can pretty much tell it's all just personal templated VMs underneath, which is exactly what I don't want. I don't want a "storage account" that configures a bunch of inflexible subresources. Say I want to store some blobs, I'd want to make a bucket for that and on that bucket I'll do my tagging, policies and parameters (availability, durability etc). And then I want to do it again, but with slightly different parameters. And then I want to do it 100 times again with various parameters. So now I need 100+ storage accounts too? Who thought it would be a good idea to add a storage account as an intermediary? Probably nobody. But the technology wasn't ready, so instead of going witha good idea, they went with "this will fit on the spreadsheet of the sales department" and released it. Below the surface somewhere hidden from the public API, this reserves some SAN for you, as if we're playing datacenter-for-hire in 2005...

You might wonder: why does it matter? It matters when you do a lot of changes every day, not just deployments or cookie cutter rollouts, but many different applications, services and changes to existing resources. Entire environments are created and destroyed with 100's of resources many times per day per team, and we can't sit around waiting because Azure wants to stop and cleanup an instance that they run under the hood, and we definitely don't want to pay (6 to 7 figures) for such a construction. We want to make use of fast public services that provision and scale in seconds and have APIs that will actually do the job instead of time out and return internal errors. If a cloud isn't really a cloud, but behaves like a datacenter with windows PCs in it, it doesn't do enough for us.

I'll admit, after migrating the last users off of Azure, the only remaining ones are not doing anything cloud-native anyway, it's all just staff-type SaaS (think: Intune, M365 and some Dynamics), so the amount of new Azure knowledge and experience for me over the past 6 months is a lot less than it used to be. The period around 2017 was when most stuff in Azure became a bit more usable with RBAC and AZ Policies, but that was like 6 years too late and to this day is a split world with Entra, yet completely dependant on Entra. Even external identities cannot use STS directly and will have to use static SP credentials. A cursory look at the current docs shows it's still a (premium in secure uses) case. I get it, that's how Microsoft can make more money, but it is technically a bunch of nonsense as other clouds have shown.

These reads like you learned one cloud platform and expected all others to be the same.

Well, regardless of how it reads, that is not the case.

Can you be more specific?

> Can you be more specific?

To start off, read up on the ass-backwards concept of an app service plan. That nonsense is the ultimate anti-cloud computing approach to cloud computing.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/app-service/overview...

It's sad, because I legit found my experience working with Google's "serverless" stuff (like Cloud Run) to be superior to the AWS equivalent. The GCP command line tools ("gcloud") also feel better designed.

That's the thing GP is saying, Google might excel in engineering and even build superior products, but the issue bringing them down these days is that they can't manage customers/partners/etc for shit and if they fumble on search it could be over.

Most telling example was how iirc Terraria was a launch highlight for Stadia to show awesome indies, then somehow their magic systems lock down the developers account and despite internal pressure from Stadia devrel people they don't get it back in time until the developer just cancels development of the Stadia port. https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/lf7iie/terraria_on_s...

No account manager can help when the support is so bad it would have been better if they admitted they had no idea and superb if they admitted the feature we were sold didn't exist and had no plans of existing.

Would save me months of lead time.

Personal experience goes that Google Cloud support treated us quite well even when called by small 3 person team doing minuscule spend, in another company Microsoft treated us very well but our spend could be probably tracked by nationwide powergrid monitoring of their datacenters.

And AWS lied about features and ultimately never responded back.

I figure the account managers talking to high level management about contracting mandatory multi-million spend on AWS know how to talk with said management.

But at the end, what comes to actually developing and delivering products for others, we were left in the dust.

To make it funnier, part of what made it so hard was that the feature they lied to us was supposed to be critical for making sure the UX for end-users was really stellar.

As a dev I recently sent my first AWS support request. Received a non useful response featuring factually incorrect statements about their own platform. Replied to support ticket, no reply. Sent email to two AWS reps, never got a reply.

My potential aws account manager told me I was stupid, and that if I listened carefully to him, I would understand he was right and I was wrong.

I’m quite happy I’m not using aws - in my case (hpc, spot instances don’t work ) they don’t work.

I'm probably an outlier here. My experience with GCP support has been nothing but stellar, like I described in another comment down below

Having something work right is worth 10 account managers rolling in the mud in my opinion.

Reminds me of the old Rackspace days! Boy we had some war stories:

   - Some EMC guys came to install a storage device for us to test... and tripped over each other and knocked out an entire Rack of servers like a comedy skit. (They uh... didn't win the contract.)
   - Some poor guy driving a truck had a heart attack and the crash took our DFW datecenter offline. (There were ballards to prevent this sort of scenario, but the cement hadn't been poured in them yet.)
   - At one point we temporarily laser-beamed bandwidth across the street to another building
   - There was one day we knocked out windows and purchased box fans because servers were literally catching on fire.

Once worked in a "DC" in a converted cow shed in the English countryside. Hot takes that align with your experiences:

    - A key microwave link kept going down with intermittent packet errors way down in the data link layer. A short investigation discovered that a tree across the road had come into leaf, and a branch was blowing into the line of sight of the kit on our building. A step-ladder, a saw and 10 minutes later we restored connectivity
    - Our main (BGP-ified) router out of the DC - no, there wasn't a redundant device - kept rebooting. A quick check showed the temp in the DC was so high, cooling so poor, that the *inlet* fan had an air temp of over 60C. We pointed some fans at it as a temporary measure. 
    - In a similar vein, a few weeks later the air con in another room just gave up and started spewing water over the Nortel DMS-100 (we were a dial-in ISP with our own switch). Wasn't too happy to be asked to help mop it up (thought the water could potentially be live), but what to do?

And a few years after that I also got to commission a laser beam link over Manchester's Oxford Road (at the time, the busiest bus route in Europe), to link up an office to a University campus. Fun times.

It was all terrific fun, but I'm so glad I now only really do software.

> It was all terrific fun, but I'm so glad I now only really do software.

I don't blame you, a lot of us had to do things outside the box. Could be worse though, I saw a post on r/sysadmin yesterday where a poor guy got a support ticket to spray fox urine outside near the generators.

Better than having to collect the fox urine first...

Squirrels are a real bitch.

> Data center science has... well improved since the earlier days

You say that, but...

> There was one day we knocked out windows and purchased box fans because servers were literally catching on fire

This happened to Equinix's CH1 datacenter in Chicago Jan24 (not the literal fire part). Took down Azure ExpressRoute.

Apparently it got too cold and the CRACs couldn't take it? I'm told they had all the doors and windows open trying to keep things cold enough, but alas. As the CRAC goes, so goes the servers

I’ve worked in CH1 for years now. The glycol in the chillers froze. Thats how cold it was!

It was also 115 degrees ambient temp inside CH1. Techs were dipping in and out 5-10 minutes at a time to avoid heat stroke

running European ISPs in summer we’d nick desk fans off the telco folks to cool down our walls of USR Sportsters, distracting them first with snarky remarks about ATM overhead

absolutely do not miss those days

Many years ago I had a BlackDiamond dropped on my foot during installation at INTX LON1 for LINX, disabling me for hours. The switch in question was evidently cursed: later that week a spanning tree misconfiguration on the same unit then disabled LINX for hours, throwing half of Britain's ISP peering into temporary chaos, and everyone else involved in that project was dead within two years.

> dropped on my foot during installation, ... spanning tree misconfiguration, ... was dead within two years.

Yikes, that escalated quickly. I'm glad you escaped the Switch Grim Reaper and my condolences to the families of the rest :(

> everyone else involved in that project was dead within two years

wait, what?

the tech sector in the 90s got pretty wild

We had a bird land on a transformer up on a pole and blew fuses. A couple years later, I toured the facility and the fried carcass was still there on the ground below it.

Left as a warning to other birds, no doubt.

This is fine.

> There was one day we knocked out windows and purchased box fans because servers were literally catching on fire.

Pointing the fans in or out?

You want to point them in.

The datacenters I've been in with emergency cooling fans in the walls all exhaust out, not in. Easier to get portable CRACs inside and get a good draft going.

> Data center science has... well improved since the earlier days. We worked with Facebook on the OpenCompute Project that had some very forward looking infra concepts at the time.

Am a bit surprised Meta doesn't offer a cloud provider yet to compete with AWS/GCP. Especially considering how much R&D they've put into their infra.

Pro: even more opportunities to spy on every user in the world

Con: interacting with internal stakeholders is waaaaay different from doing the same for the general public paying you. See also: every mention of GCP that ever shows up in these threads

Plus all their SDKs would be written in php :-P

In the bad old days I had a server at blue host in Dallas. Went to the dc once and there extension cords accross the racks suspended about 1ft off the ground that I had to step over to get to my server. Hey at least it was cheap :)

When it comes to Internet service we're living in the early 2000s in the some parts of the manufacturing world

Manufacturing is always about 25 years behind the times. I made good scratch in the '00s helping manufactures with their DEC PDP-11 and DG Novas (from the 70s).

I recall getting a DC tour of LON3 and being totally blown away by it all as a 20-something web dev. Good times.

When I was in college I’d call up datacenters pretending to be a prospective customer and schedule a tour. I was totally fascinated by them and knew enough to sound legit, it was like going to an amusement park for me.

When I was in college, I got a job in the campus DC for the same reason. Best job ever for an undergraduate student.

I attended an OCP lecture by someone involved in building a facebook DC.

One of the stories was learning that stuff on top gets hotter than stuff on bottom.

This is, like, basic stuff here, guys. I've never understood the hiring practices in these projects.

> and purchased box fans because servers were literally catching on fire

Ah yes, or a collection of R2D2 portable air conditioners, with the tails draped out through the window.

Or a coolant leak that no one noticed until the sub-floor was completely full and the floor panels started to float!

From the post: "...but also despite multi-million dollar annual spend, we get about as much support from them as you would spending $100." -- Ouch! That is a pretty huge problem for Google.

I really enjoyed this post, mostly because we had similar adventures when setting up the infrastructure for Blekko. For Blekko, a company that had a lot of "east west" network traffic (that is traffic that goes between racks vs to/from the Internet at large) having physically colocated services without competing with other servers for bandwidth was both essential and much more cost effective than paying for this special case at SoftLayer (IBM's captive cloud).

There are some really cool companies that will build an enclosure for your cold isle, basically it ensures all the air coming out of the floor goes into the back of your servers and not anywhere else. It also keeps not cold air from being entrained from the sides into your servers.

The calculations for HVAC 'CRAC' capacity in a data center are interesting too. In the first CoLo facility we had a 'ROFOR' (right of first refusal) on expanding into the floor area next to our cage, but when it came time to expand the facility had no more cooling capacity left so it was meaningless.

Once you've done this exercise, looking at the 0xide solution will make a lot more sense to you.

This is how you build a dominant company. Good for you ignoring the whiny conventional wisdom that keeps people stuck in the hyperscalers.

You’re an infrastructure company. You gotta own the metal that you sell or you’re just a middleman for the cloud, and always at risk of being undercut by a competitor on bare metal with $0 egress fees.

Colocation and peering for $0 egress is why Cloudflare has a free tier, and why new entrants could never compete with them by reselling cloud services.

In fact, for hyperscalers, bandwidth price gouging isn’t just a profit center; it’s a moat. It ensures you can’t build the next AWS on AWS, and creates an entirely new (and strategically weaker) market segment of “PaaS” on top of “IaaS.”

Yup. Bingo. We've had to pass the cloud egress costs onto our customers, which sucks.

With this, it'll mean we can slash that in half, lower storage costs, remove "per seat" pricing, etc

Super exciting

How do bandwidth costs work now? do you pay the ISPs a flat fee, or is it still usage-based? how much cheaper is it compared to cloud providers?

in my experience (Eu, datacenter/ISP space) connectivity is either sold based on 99percentile commitments (aka, you pay for sending us this amount of traffic, anything over this gets you billed extra) or based on a minimum commitment for the traffic you send. (atleast X amount of bandwith) or it is based on a flat free principle where you pay an upfront cost for the setup and the rest is a base price for X amount of bits per seconds.

It depends a lot on what kind of connection you require, and things like oversubscription and congestion control also come into play.

Peering ports with IXP's are usually flat rate, while ports in datacenters to end customers usually have more complex constructs.

Hyperscaler bandwith is notoriously expensive. for instance, a 100Gbps port on the AMS-IX is 2500$[1].

Now, you need to account for extra costs to actually use this port (some IP space, ASN number etc) but even with all that added up i think you will not get much more expensive then 400$ per month averaged in total over a year.

Now what makes comparing difficult is that hyperscalers are not transparant when it comes to connectivity costs. Looking at egress fees for example:

AWS seems to charge 1 cent per Gigabyte transferred for egress fees.

If we send data at line rate across our 100Gbps for an entire month we get the following:

100gbps = 12.5Gigabytes per second. 12.5 * 2 629 743 83 (number of seconds in a month) = 32871797875 Gigabytes 32871797875 / 0,001$ = 3.287.179,7875

thats 3,2 million dollars... compared to roughly 4000!

AWS also seems to offer "dedicated connections". at roughly 22 dollars per hour [3] (no clue if this is even comparble to an IXP port, but the comparison would still be fun to make).

22$ x 720 (hours per month = 15.840$, or roughly 3times the IXP port price.

In both cases, you are getting absolutely shafted by egress prices at cloud providers compared to doing it yourself.

[1] https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/pricing-us [2] https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/on-demand/ [3] https://aws.amazon.com/directconnect/pricing/

> AWS seems to charge 1 cent per Gigabyte transferred for egress fees.

I am seeing 5-9x that?

If you didn't lower your bandwidth costs way more than 50% we should chat.

This is a pretty decent write up. One thing that comes to mind is why would you write your own internal tooling for managing a rack when Netbox exists? Netbox is fantastic and I wish I had this back in the mid 2000s when I was managing 50+ racks.

https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox

we evaluated a lot of commercial and oss offerings before we decided do go build it ourselves - we still have a deploy of netbox somewhere. But our custom tool (Railyard) works so well because it integrates deeply into the our full software, hardware and orchestration stack. The problem with the OSS stuff is that it's almost too generic - you shape the problem to fit its data model vs. solve the problem. We're likely going to fold our tool into Railway itself eventually - want to go on-prem; button click hardware design, commission, deploy and devex. Sorta like what Oxide is doing, but approaching the problem from the opposite side.

Look at the issue list...that is why.

https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues?q=is%3Aiss...

Note how they want to be "NetBox functions as the source of truth for your network infrastructure."

Your individual situation dictates what is important, but had netbox targeted being a central repository vs insisting on not allow other systems to be truthful for certain items it could be a different story.

We have learned that trying to centralize complexity and control doesn't work, heck we knew that almost immediately after the Clinger Cohen Act passed and even ITIL and TOGAF fully call this out now and I expect this to be targeted by consultants over the next few years.

You need a central constant way to find state, to remove any questions or doubt regarding where to find the authoritative information, but generally if you aspire to scale and grow or adapt to new changes you really need to avoid having some centralized, god-box, and prescriptive system like this.

Netbox is just 10,000 Django models with a theme on top. Not very rewarding software to use.

I like netbox, had it deployed for quite a while. It's performance was abysmal and I had to shape my world around how they wanted things.

This is the usual case of "We need X and Y does X", but ignoring that Y also does Z,M,Q and washes dishes and you really don't need those things.

Sometimes building what you need is the easiest solution, specially when what you need is CRUD infront of a DB...

It is not that difficult to build it into your app, if you're already storing information about hosts, networking etc. All you're really doing is expanding the scope, netbox is a fine starting point if you're willing to start there and build your systems around it, but if you've already got a system (or you need to do anything that doesn't fit netbox logic) you're probably better off just extending it.

In this case railway will need to care about a lot of extra information beyond just racks, IP addresses and physical servers.

correct; I think the first version of our tool sprung up in the space of a couple of weekends. It wasn't planned, my colleague Pierre who wrote it just had a lot of fun building it.

Were there any promising OSS alternatives to Netbox?

There's a fork called nautobot that tries to add-in automation. Most things we wanted to do with either meant we had to go writing django plugins and trying to interface with their APIs (and fight with the libs). Overall just hammering together a small custom service ended up being way faster/simpler.

Netbox is crap unless you are trying to manage a small but very heterogeneous environment. For anything big, very homogeneous etc you really don't want it.

It feels more like an OSS tool for managing university campus scale infra, which is completely fine if that is the problem you have but for commercial scale infrastructure unfortunately there isn't a good OOTB DCIM option right now.

Even for campus scale (e.g. CERN), there are limited options, https://www.epj-conferences.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2019/19...

I used to work on machine repair automation at a big tech company. IMO repairs are one of the overlooked and harder things to deal with. When you run on AWS you don't really think about broken hardware it mostly just repairs itself. When you do it yourself you don't have that luxury. You need to have spare parts, technician to do repairs, a process for draining/undraining jobs off hosts, testing suites, hardware monitoring tools and 1001 more things to get this right. At smaller scales you can cut corners on some of these things but they will eventually bite you. And this is just machines! Networking gear has it's own fun set of problems, and when it fails it can take down your whole rack. How much do you trust your colos not to lose power during peak load? I hope you run disaster recovery drills to prep for these situations!

Wishing all the best to this team, seems like fun!

Makes me remember some of the days I had in my career. There were a couple really interesting datacenter things I learned by having to deploy tens of thousands of servers in the 2003-2010 timeframe.

Cable management and standardization was extremely important (like you couldn't get by with shitty practices). At one place where we were deploying hundreds of servers per week, we had a menu of what ops people could choose if the server was different than one of the major clusters. We essentially had 2 chassis options, big disk servers which were 2u or 1u pizza boxes. You then could select 9/36/146gb SCSI drives. Everything was dual processor with the same processors and we basically had the bottom of the rack with about 10x 2u boxes and then the rest was filled with 20 or more 1u boxes.

If I remember correctly we had gotten such an awesome deal on the price for power, because we used facility racks in the cage or something, since I think they threw in the first 2x 30 amp (240v) circuits for free when you used their racks. IIRC we had a 10 year deal on that and there was no metering on them, so we just packed each rack as much as we could. We would put 2x 30s on one side and 2x 20s on another side. I have to think that the DC was barely breaking even because of how much heat we put out and power consumption. Maybe they were making up for it in connection / peering fees.

I can't remember the details, will have to check with one of my friends that worked there around that time.

There's places where it makes sense to be on the cloud, and places where it doesn't. The two best examples I can give are for high bandwidth, or heavy disk intensive applications.

Take Netflix. While almost everything is in the cloud the actual delivery of video is via their own hardware. Even at their size I doubt this business would be economically feasible if they were paying someone else for this.

Something I've seen often (some numbers changed because...)

20 PB Egress at $0.02/GB = $400,000/month

20 PB is roughly 67 Gbps 95th Percentile

It's not hard to find 100 Gbps flat rate for $5,000/month

Yes this is overly simplistic, and yes there's a ton more that goes into it than this. But the delta is significant.

For some companies $4,680,000/year doesn't move the needle, for others this could mean survival.

It would be nice to have a lot more detail. The WTF sections are the best part. Sounds like your gear needs "this side towards enemy" sign and/or the right affordances so it only goes in one way.

Did you standardize on layout at the rack level? What poke-yoke processes did you put into place to prevent mistakes?

What does your metal->boot stack look like?

Having worked for two different cloud providers and built my own internal clouds with PXE booted hosts, I too find this stuff fascinating.

Also take utmost advantage of a new DC when you are booting it to try out all the failure scenarios you can think of and the ones you can't through randomized fault injection.

> It would be nice to have a lot more detail

I'm going to save this for when I'm asked to cut the three paras on power circuit types.

Re: standardising layout at the rack level; we do now! we only figured this out after site #2. It makes everything so much easier to verify. And yeah, validation is hard - manually doing it thus far; want to play around with scraping LLDP data but our switch software stack has a bug :/. It's an evolving process, the more we work with different contractors, the more edge cases we unearth and account for. The biggest improvement is that we have built a internal DCIM that templates a rack design and exports a interactive "cabling explorer" for the site techs - including detailed annotated diagrams of equipment showing port names, etc... The screenshot of the elevation is a screenshot of part of that tool.

> What does your metal->boot stack look like?

We've hacked together something on top of https://github.com/danderson/netboot/tree/main/pixiecore that serves a debian netboot + preseed file. We have some custom temporal workers to connect to Redfish APIs on the BMCs to puppeteer the contraption. Then a custom host agent to provision QEMU VMs and advertise assigned IPs via BGP (using FRR) from the host.

Re: new DCs for failure scenarios, yeah we've already blown breakers etc... testing stuff (that's how we figured out our phase balancing was off). Went in with a thermal camera on another. A site in AMS is coming up next week and the goal for that is to see how far we can push a fully loaded switch fabric.

Wonderful!

The edge cases are the gold btw, collect the whole set and keep them in a human and machine readable format.

I'd also go through and using a color coded set of cables, insert bad cables (one at a time at first) while the system is doing an aggressive all to all workload and see how quickly you can identify faults.

It is the gray failures that will bring the system down, often multiple as a single failure will go undetected for months and then finally tip over an inflection point at a later time.

Are you workloads ephemeral and/or do they live migrate? Or will physical hosts have long uptimes? It is nice to be able to rebaseline the hardware before and after host kernel upgrades so you can detect any anomalies.

You would be surprised about how larger of a systemic performance degradation that major cloud providers have been able to see over months because "all machines are the same", high precision but low absolute accuracy. It is nice to run the same benchmarks on bare metal and then again under virtualization.

I am sure you know, but you are running a multivariate longitudinal experiment, science the shit out of it.

Long running hosts at the moment, but we can drain most workloads off a specific host/rack if required and reschedule it pretty fast. We have the advantage of having a custom scheduler/orchestrator we've been working on for years, so we have a lot of control on that layer than with Kube or Nomad.

Re: Live Migration We're working on adding Live Migration support to our orchestrator atm. We aim to have it running this quarter. That'll makes things super seamless.

Re: kernels We've already seen some perf improvements somewhere between 6.0 and 6.5 (I forget the exact reason/version) - but it was some fix specific to the Sapphire Rapids cpus we had. But I wish we had more time to science on it, it's really fun playing with all the knobs and benchmarking stuff. Some of the telemetry on the new CPUs is also crazy - there's stuff like Intel PCM that can pull super fine-grained telemetry direct from the CPU/chipset https://github.com/intel/pcm. Only used it to confirm that we got NUMA affinity right so far - nothing crazy.

Last thing.

You will need a way to coordinate LM with users due them being sensitive to LM blackouts. Not many workloads are, but the ones that are are the kinds of things that customers will just leave over.

If you are draining a host, make sure new VMs are on hosts that can be guaranteed to be maintenance free for the next x-days. This allows customers to restart their workloads on their schedule and have a guarantee that they won't be impacted. It also encourages good hygiene.

Allow customers to trigger migration.

Charge extra for a long running maintenance free host.

It is good you are hooked into the PCM already. You will experience accidentally antagonistic workloads and the PCM will really help debug those issues.

If I were building a DC, I put as many NICs into a host as possible and use SR-VIO to pass the nics into the guests. The switches should be sized to allow for full speed on all nics. I know it sounds crazy but if you design for a typical crud serving tree, you are a saving a buck but making your software problem 100x harder.

Everything should have enough headroom so it never hits a knee of a contention curve.

> want to play around with scraping LLDP data but our switch software stack has a bug

It's written for Cumulus Linux, but it should be adaptable to other NOSes with some work: https://github.com/CumulusNetworks/ptm

You give it a graphviz dot file, and it uses LLDP to ensure that reality matches that file.

That’s pretty cool.

Good writeup! Google really screws you when you are looking for 100G speeds, it's almost insulting. For example redundant 100G dedicated interconnects are about $35K per month and that doesn't include VLAN attachments, colo x-connect fees, transit, etc. Not only that, they max out on 50G for VLAN attachments.

To put this cost into perspective, you can buy two brand new 32 port 100G switches from Arista for the same amount of money. In North America, you can get 100G WAN circuits (managed Wavelength) for less than $5K/month. If it's a local metro you can also get dark fiber for less and run whatever speed you want.

also, buy some DWDM equipment and you can easily scale those darkfibers to offer multiple 100GBPS connections for very little cost.

I guess there's another in-between step buying your own hardware, even when merely "leasing individual racks", and EC2 instances: dedicated bare metal providers like Hetzner.

This lets one get closer to the metal (e.g. all your data is on your specific disk, rather than an abstracted block storage, such as EBS, not shared with other users, cheaper, etc) without having to worry about the staff that installs the hardware or where/how it fits in a rack.

For us, this was a way to get 6x performance for 1/6 of the cost. (Excluding, of course our time, but we enjoyed it!)

Hetzner is very good for low cost high bandwidth things that don't need a serious SLA. But if you're selling a platform like Railway.com the stability and flexibility of Hetzner aren't going to be good enough.

Agreed. We run our own bare metal in a rack, but also rent machines from Hivelocity where the use case suits.

We went down this path over the last year, lots of our devs need local and dev/test environments and AWS was costing us a bomb, With about 7 Bare metals(Colocation) we are running about 200+ VMs and could double that number with some capacity to spare. For management, we built a simple wrapper over libvirt. I am setting up another rack in the US and will end up costing around $75Kper year for a similar capacity.

Our prod is on AWS but we plan to move everything else and it's expected to save at least a quarter of a million dollars per year

Sounds like a good chunk of money saved, but are you getting the same level of redundancy as you did on the cloud?

For most dev/test workflows redundancy is not a huge concern, because we can just recreate the environments, in practice things are quite stable, most HW vendors like Hp Dell etc let you rent the servers instead of buying them, in case of serious HW issues they take care of the fixes, and usually there is someone at the Colocation site to take care of the day to day

This is our first post about building out data centers. If you have any questions, we're happy to answer them here :)

I thought it was an interesting post, so I tried to add Railway's blog to my RSS reader... but it didn't work. I tried searching the page source for RSS and also found nothing. Eventually, I noticed the RSS icon in the top right, but it's some kind of special button that I can't right click and copy the link from, and Safari prevents me from knowing what the URL is... so I had to open that from Firefox to find it.

Could be worth adding a <meta> tag to the <head> so that RSS readers can autodiscover the feed. A random link I found on Google: https://www.petefreitag.com/blog/rss-autodiscovery/

How do you deal with drive failures? How often does a Railway team member need to visit a DC? What's it like inside?

Everything is dual redundancy. We run RAID so if a drive fails it's fine; alerting will page oncall which will trigger remote hands onsite, where we have spares for everything in each datacenter

How much additional overhead is there for managing the bare-metal vs cloud? Is it mostly fine after the big effort for initial setup?

We built some internal tooling to help manage the hosts. Once a host is onboarded onto it, it's a few button clicks on an internal dashboard to provision a QEMU VM. We made a custom ansible inventory plugin so we can manage these VMs the same as we do machines on GCP.

The host runs a custom daemon that programs FRR (an OSS routing stack), so that it advertises addresses assigned to a VM to the rest of the cluster via BGP. So zero config of network switches, etc... required after initial setup.

We'll blog about this system at some point in the coming months.

How did you select the hardware? Did you do a bake off/poc with different vendors? With the intention of being in different countries, are you going to leverage the same hardware at every DC? What level of support SLA did you go with for your hardware vendors and the colo facilities? And my favorite, how are your finances changing (plus pros cons) by going capex vs opex?

I am really thankful for this article as I finally get where my coworkers get "wrong" notions about three-phase power use in DC:

>The calculations aren’t as simple as summing watts though, especially with 3-phase feeds — Cloudflare has a great blogpost covering this topic.

What's written in the Cloudflare blogpost linked in the article holds true only of you can use a Delta config (as done in the US to obtain 208V) as opposed to the Wye config used in Europe. The latter does not give a substantial advantage: no sqrt(3) boost to power distribution efficiency and you end up adding Watts for three independent single phase circuits (cfr. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-phase_electric_power).

Was really hoping this was was actually about building your own data center. Our town doesn't have a data center, we need to go an hour south or an hour north. The building that a past failed data center was in (which doesn't bode well for a data center in town, eh?), is up for lease and I'm tempted.

But, I'd need to start off small, probably per-cabinet UPSes and transfer switches, smaller generators. I've built up cabinets and cages before, but never built up the exterior infrastructure.

Why did it fail would be my question.

If it turns out to be any of “location, location, location” then getting a partially kitted out building may not help you.

Did they get independent data into the building via different routes? How’s the power?

Could be the data was coming in through a route that sees frequent construction. I knew a guy who ran the IT dept for a university and he discovered that the excavation crews found it was cheaper to maybe have to pay a fine for cutting data lines than it was to wait for them to be marked accurately. He spent a lot of time being stressed out.

I agree that one of the first steps would be to take someone from the previous facility out for a meal, which I can probably arrange fairly easily. I don't exactly know why it failed, it was run by the biggest local ISP. I can speculate about why they failed (DSL speeds are severely limited in our town, so really Xfinity was it, they tried providing fiber in some locations, but found it hard to keep up with fiber locate calls). The Colocation side of the business was never very big, but it's not clear if that is because there's not demand or that they just never really pushed it.

Location is fairly good, as far as data centers go. It's got relatively good network connectivity, I believe, but I don't have specifics about entrances and diversity. It is close to one of the big fiber rings around the city, I believe the ring is pulled into the facility. I don't know if they had telco fiber in, or backhauled it via the fiber ring.

Power is probably good, but not great -- I'd doubt it's fed from multiple substations. There was, at one point, some generator bays.

While I could use data center space in town, it'd be hard to convince my work to move, partly as we just signed a 3 year agreement for hosting 60 miles away, partly just because of the cost of a move. It probably should remain a pipe dream.

They’re not building their own data center - they’re doing what lots of companies have been doing for years ( including where I work , and I specialize in hpc so this is all fairly standard ), which is buying space and power in a dc, and installing boxes in there. Yes, it’s possible to get it wrong. It is however not the same as building a DC …

> This will likely involve installing some overhead infrastructure and trays that let you route fiber cables from the edge of your cage to each of your racks, and to route cables between racks

Perhaps I am reading this wrong, as you appear to be fiber heavy and do have space on the ladder rack for copper, but if you are commingling the two, be careful. A possible future iteration, would consider a smaller panduit fiberunner setup + a wire rack.

Co-mingling copper and fiber, especially through the large spill-overs works until it doesn't.

Depending on how adaptive you need to be with technology changes, you may run into this in a few years.

4x6 encourages a lot of people putting extra cable up in those runners, and sharing a spout with cat-6, cx-#, PDU serial, etc... will almost always end badly for some chunk of fiber. After those outages it also encourages people to 'upgrade in place'. When you are walking to your cage look at older cages, notice the loops sticking out of the tops of the trays and some switches that look like porcupines because someone caused an outage and old cables are left in place.

Congrats on your new cage.

More to learn from the failures than the blog haha. It tells you what the risks are with a colocation facility. There really isn't any text on how to do this stuff. The last time I wanted to build out a rack there aren't even any instructions on how to do cable management well. It's sort of learned by apprenticeship and practice.

I am just fascinated by the need of Datacenter. The scale is beyond comprehension. 10 years ago, before the word HyperScaler was even invented or popularised, I would have thought DC market to be on the decline or levelled off now or around this time. One reason being HyperScaler, AWS, Google, Microsoft, Meta, Apple, Tencent, Alibaba, to smaller ones like Oracle and IBM. They would all have their own DC, taking on much of the compute for themselves and others. While left over space would be occupied by third parties. Another reason being the compute, memory and storage density continue to increase, which means for the same amount of floor space we are offering 5 - 20x of the previous CPU / RAM / Storage.

Turns out we are building like mad and we are still not building enough.

just look at the insane amount of computers that currently exist and need to communicate to do data processing.

I remember 30 years ago most people used one single computer for the family at home, half of the people i knew didn't have proper internet access. (and this is from a western perspective, the rest of the world was even far less digitized).

Now look at how much networked computers are around you. - your phone - one or multiple TV's - laptops/desktops etc - smart home appliances.

and this is just looking at the very small sample size of a normal household, add up to that things like the digitizalisation of factories, the digitalization of the rest of the world. (internet access has grown massively in the past 15 years in the developing world).

We have far more computers then a decade ago, and far more people have them aswell, and it shows very little signs of stopping.

IPv6 for instance, supports an absolutely infanthomable IP address space. (which people often seem to think is overkill), but looking at the past growth, i think having suchs a large address space is a wise choice.

Another thing which people seem to not notice is that a lot of older DC's are being phased out, mainly because these facilities are repurposed telephone exchanges and far less suitable for more power hungry computing power.

>We have far more computers then a decade ago,

Yes that was already taken into account. We rushed pass active usage of Smartphone of 4B in 2020. With additional 1B user who have access to 4G / Smartphone but not using any Data. 1B people who cant afford it or are using feature phone. And around 1B people who are outside the age of using smartphone, child, baby etc. That is a total Around 7B people already. And anything after is a long tail of new generation outpacing older generation. Tablet usage has levelled off. PC market hasn't had new growth outside China and India. COVID managed to fasten a lot these digitalisation. I wrote about how the Growth of AWS in 2023 was roughly equal to doubling of itself in 2016. i.e 2023 AWS was building out the size of AWS 2016. That is insane. And yet we are still building more.

>Another thing which people seem to not notice is that a lot of older DC's are being phased out,

That is something I am not aware. But certainly will keep a look out. This got me thinking if building out a new DC is easier and cheaper than repurposing older DC not designed for high computing power density usage? While I have said we could increase Compute, RAM , Storage density in Rack by 10-20x, we have also increase power usage by 4 - 5x. Not only electricity / power usage but cooling and design also requires additional thoughts.

My first colo box came courtesy of a friend of a friend that worked for one of the companies that did that (leaving out names to protect the innocent). It was a true frankenputer built out of whatever spare parts he had laying around. He let me come visit it, and it was an art project as much as a webserver. The mainboard was hung on the wall with some zip ties, the PSU was on the desk top, the hard drive was suspended as well. Eventually, the system was upgraded to newer hardware, put in an actual case, and then racked with an upgraded 100base-t connection. We were screaming in 1999.

The date and time durations given seem a bit confusing to me...

"we kicked off a Railway Metal project last year. Nine months later we were live with the first site in California".

seems inconsistent with:

"From kicking off the Railway Metal project in October last-year, it took us five long months to get the first servers plugged in"

The article was posted today (Jan 2025), was it maybe originally written last year and the project has been going on for more than a year, and they mean that the Railway Metal project actually started in 2023?

ah that's my bad - I wrote this in Dec, we only published in Jan. Obv. missed updating that.

Timeline wise; - we decided to go for it and spend the $$$ in Oct '23 - Convos/planning started ~ Jan '24 - Picked the vendors we wanted by ~ Feb/Mar '24 - Lead-times, etc... meant everything was ready for us to go fit the first gear by mostly ourselves at the start of May (that's the 5mo) - We did the "proper" re-install around June, followed closely by the second site in ~ Sep, around when we started letting our users on it as a open beta - Sep-Dec we just doubled down on refining software/automation and process while building out successive installs

Lead times can be mind numbing. We have certain switches from Arista that have a 3-6 mo leadtime. Servers are build to order, so again 2+ months depending on stock. And obv. holidays mean a lot of stuff shuts down around December.

Sometimes you can swap stuff around to get better lead-times, but then the operational complexity explodes because you have this slightly different component at this one site.

I used to be a EEE, and I thought supply chain there was bad. But with DCs I think it's sometimes worse because you don't directly control some parts of your BoM/supply chain (especially with build-to-order servers).

From working at a cloud, and speaking with capacity folks regularly when I was in certain roles, the supply chain strikes me as one of the biggest nightmares. Even at scale when vendors really, really want (or want to keep) your business. At times it almost seems like someone sneezes somewhere and whoops, there goes your hardware delivery timelines.

The advantage at cloud scale is a lot of constant signal around capacity delivery, demand etc. so you can build mathematical models to best work out when to start placing orders, and for what.

FWIW this is the advantage of being able to run in the cloud and on perm

If we have to we can “burst” into the cloud

Interesting that they call out the extortionate egress fees from the majors as a motivation, but are nevertheless also charging customers $0.10 per GB themselves.

Bezos: Your margin is my opportunity.

Railway: No, your margin is my opportunity.

We currently pass on our cloud egress costs to users via the current pricing. We'll be publishing a pricing update soon as part of our migration - and egress [and some other things] will be coming down.

That $0.10 per GB is direct pass along for the cloud ingress fees

We can lower that once we’re fully on metal

I can relate.

We provide a small PaaS-like hosting service, kinda similar to Railway (but more niche). We have recently re-elaborated our choice for AWS (since $$$) as infra provider, but will now stick to it [1].

We started with colocation 20 years ago. For a tiny provider it was quite a hustle (but also an experience). We just had too many single point of failures and we found ourselves dealing with physical servers way too often. We also struggled to fade out and replace hardware.

Without reading all the comments thoroughly: For me, being on infra that runs on green energy is important. I think it's also a trend with customers, there even service for this [2]. I don't see it mentioned here.

[1] https://blog.fortrabbit.com/infra-research-2024 [2] https://www.thegreenwebfoundation.org/

Love these kinds of posts. Tried railway for the first time a few days ago. It was a delightful experience. Great work!

Thank you! Anything you think we can do better?

Per my experience with cloud, the most powerful Infra abstraction that AWS offers is actually EC2. The simplicity of getting a cluster of machines up and running with all the metadata readily available via APIs is just liberating. And it just works: the network is easy to configure, the ASGs are flexible enough to customize, and the autoscaling offers strong primitives for advanced scaling.

Amazingly, few companies who run their own DCs could build anything comparable to EC2, even at a smaller scale. When I worked in those companies, I sorely missed EC2. I was wondering if there's any robust enough open-source alternatives to EC2's control-plane software to manage baremetals and offer VMs on top them. That'll be awesome for companies that build their own DCs.

I believe eBay still runs on OpenStack, which as far as I know even has as ec2-compatible emulation layer https://docs.openstack.org/api-ref/ec2-api/#supported-featur...

If you’re using 7280-SR3 switches, they’re certainly a fine choice. However, have you considered the 7280-CR3(K) range? They're much better $/Gbps and more relevant edge interfaces.

At this scale, why did you opt for a spine-and-leaf design with 25G switches and a dedicated 32×100G spine? Did you explore just collapsing it and using 1-2 32×100G switches per rack, then employing 100G>4×25G AOC breakout cables and direct 100G links for inter-switch connections and storage servers?

Have you also thought about creating a record on PeeringDB?https://www.peeringdb.com/net/400940.

By the way, I’m not convinced I’d recommend a UniFi Pro for anything, even for out-of-band management.

All valid points - and our ideas for Gen 2 sound directionally similar - but those are at crayon drawing stage.

When we started, we didn't have much of an idea about what the rack needs to look like. So we chose a combination of things we thought we could pull this off. We're mostly software and systems folks, and there's a dearth of information out there on what to do. Vendors tend to gravitate towards selling BGP+EVPN+VXLAN or whatever "enterprise" reference designs; so we kinda YOLO'ed the Gen 1. We decided to spend extra money if we could get to a working setup sooner. When the clock is in cloud spend, there's uh... lots of opportunity cost :D.

A lot of the chipset and switch choices were bets and we had to pick and choose what we gambled on - and what we could get our hands on. The main bets this round were eBGP to the hosts with BGP unnumbered, SONiC switches - this lets us do a lot of networking with our existing IPv6/Wireguard/eBPF overlay and a debian based switch OS + FRR (so fewer things to learn). And ofc. figuring out how to operationalise the install process and get stuff running on the hardware as soon as possible.

Now we've got a working design, we'll start iterating a bit more on the hardware choice and network design. I'd love for us to write about it when we get through it. Plus I think we owe the internet a rant on networking in general.

Edit: Also we don't use UniFi Pro / Uniquity gear anywhere?

Awesome!! Hope to see more companies go this route. I had the pleasure to do something similar for a company(lot smaller scale though)

It was my first job out of university. I will never forget the awesome experience of walking into the datacenter and start plugging cables and stuff

1. Is the impression they decided to use a non datacenter location to put their datacenter, If so that is not a good idea.

2. Geographical distanced backups, if the primary fails. Without this you are already in trouble. What happens if the buildings burns down?

3. Hooking up with "local" ISPs That seems ok. As long as ISP failing is easily and autoamically dealt with.

4. I am a bit confused about what happens at the edge. On the one head it seems like you have 1 datacenter, and ISPs doing routing, other places I get the impression you have compute close to the edge. Which is it?

1. No, they're using a cage inside a real data center in Ashburn VA which is basically data center city.

2. In the diagram you can see site 1 and site 2.

3. Yes, routers automatically deal with ISP failures.

I remember talking to Jake a couple of years ago when they were looking for someone with a storage background. Cool dude, and cool set of people. Really chuffed to see them doing what they believe in.

Thanks dude <3. We are indeed doing the thing :D

It looked interesting, until I got to the egress cost. Ouch. $100 per TB is way too much if you're using bandwidth-intensive apps.

Meta-comment: it's getting really hard to find hosting services that provide true unlimited bandwidth. I want to do video upload/download in our app, and I'm struggling to find providers of managed servers that would be willing to provide me with fixed price for 10/100GB ports.

FWIW, we just pass the costs on from the current cloud providers. Doing this work will let us lower those egress prices!

Yeah. Cloud providers are the worst. Their egress costs moved from "expensive but not unreasonable" circa 2010, to "what the fuck" territory now.

A 10G port should be in the range of $2k per month, I believe? I don't mind paying that much.

a 100g port is in the realm of 2K per month at IXP's.

Cool post and cool to see Railway talked about more on here.

I‘ve used their postgres offering for a small project (crucially it was accessible from the outside) and not only was setting it up a breeze, cost was also minimal (I believe staying within the free tier). I haven’t used the rest of the platform, but my interaction with them would suggest it would probably be pretty nice.

Having done data center builds for years, mostly on the network side but realistically with all the trades, this is a really cool article.

Excellent write up! This is not the first blog post I see in recent times on going to owning infrastructure direction, but it is certainly well written and I liked the use of Excel in it, a good use, although visually daunting!

Useful article. I was almost planning to rent a rack somewhere but it seems there's just too much work and too many things to go wrong and it's better to rent cheap dedicated servers and make it somebody elses problem

Can anyone recommend some engineering reading for building and running DC infrastructure?

We didn't find many good up-to-date resources online on the hardware side of things - kinda why we wanted to write about it. The networking aspect was the most mystical - I highly recommend "BGP in the datacenter" by Dinesh Dutt on that (I think it's available for free via NVidia). Our design is heavily influenced by the ideas discussed there.

What was the background of your team going into this project? Did you hire specialists for it (whether full time or consultants)?

We talked to a few, I think they're called MSPs? We weren't super impressed. We decided to YOLO it. There are probably great outfits out there, but it's hard to find them through the noise. We're mostly software and systems folks, but Railway is a infrastructure company so we need to own stuff down to the cage-nut - we owe it to our users. All engineering, project management and procurement is in-house.

We're lucky to have a few great distributors/manufacturers who help us pick the right gear. But we learnt a lot.

We've found a lot of value in getting a broker in to source our transit though.

My personal (and potentially misguided) hot take is that most of the baremetal world is stuck in the early 2000's, and the only companies doing anything interesting here the likes of AWS,Google and Meta. So the only way to innovate is to stumble around, escape the norms and experiment.

Did your investors give you any pushback or were they mostly supportive?

We're blessed with some kickass investors. They gave us just the right level of scrutiny. We were super clear about why we wanted to do this, we did it, and then they invested more money shortly after the first workloads starting running on metal

If you're looking for great partners, who actually have the gal to back innovation, you'd be hard pressed to do better than Redpoint (Shoutout Erica and Jordan!)

the title page says 2017 if that matters to anyone: https://docs.jetstream-cloud.org/attachments/bgp-in-the-data...

What brand of servers was used?

Looks like Supermicro.

Where do you buy this, direct from Supermicro? Asking as a Dell customer… our servers are $$$

We have a distributor we work with - just because it makes import/export a lot easier. But we get to interface directly with Supermicro for the technical/design stuff, and they're super awesome. If you're looking in the US, reach out to their eStore - really great fuss-free turnaround and all direct.

Winner winner chicken dinner!

Yes, considering the importance of the power draw, I wondered if ARM servers were used.

oh yes we want to; I even priced a couple out. Most of the SKUs I found were pretty old, and we couldn't find anything compelling to risk deploying at the scale we wanted. It's on the wishlist, and if the right hardware comes along; we'll rack it up even as a bet. We maintain Nixpacks (https://nixpacks.com/docs/getting-started), so for most of our users we could rebuild most their apps for ARM seamlessly - infact we mostly develop our build systems on ARM (because macbooks). One day.

> We maintain Nixpacks

I _knew_ Railway sounded familiar.

Out of curiosity: is nix used to deploy the servers?

Not ATM. We use it in a lot of our stack, so we will likely pull it in in the future

Got it. Especially interested to see how you set up PXE. Seen a few materials out there but never got around to doing it in my lab.

Looking forward to more blogposts!

I would be super interested to know how this stuff scales physically - how much hardware ended up in that cage (maybe in Cloud-equivalent terms), and how much does it cost to run now that it's set up?

Cliffhanger! Was mostly excited about the networking/hypervisor setup. Curious to see the next post about the software defined networking. Had not heard of FRR or SONIC previously.

the good news on this is that we've got a tonne of deep-dive material on networking and whitebox switches we cut from this post. We'll definitely be talking more about this soon (also cos' BGP is cool).

>despite multi-million dollar annual spend, we get about as much support from them as you would spending $100

Is it a good or a bad thing to have the same customer support across the board?

As someone who lost his shirt building a data center in the early 2000s, Railway is absolutely going about this the right way with colocation.

I promise my comment is not intended to troll. Why didn't you use Oxide pre-built racks? Just the power efficiency seems like a huge win.

It's a fair question. What Oxide are building is cool, but it's too custom/monolithic for us to risk. We're more likely to look at OCP racks/chassis down the road.

First time checking out railway product- it seems like a “low code” and visual way to define and operate infrastructure?

Like, if Terraform had a nice UI?

Kinda. It's like if you had everything from an infra stack but didn't need to manage it (Kubernetes for resilience, Argo for rollouts, Terraform for safely evolving infrastructure, DataDog for observability)

If you've heard of serverless, this is one step farther; infraless

Give us your code, we will spin it up, keep it up, automate rollouts service discovery, cluster scaling, monitoring, etc

Ok so you guys are serverless-ifying backend components.

Like Vercel but not just for front end

for additional social proof

I've been using railway since 2022 and it's been great. I host all my personal projects there and I can go from code to a url by copy-pasting my single dockerfile around.

weird to think my final internship was running on one of these things. thanks for all the free minutes! it was a nice experience

Man, I get an anxiety attack just thinking about making this stuff work. Kudos to all the people doing this.

My experience has been that with most things, making it work is often simple, keeping it working is where people start to get mega bucks for having the required experience

Reliability stats aside, would have loved to see cost differences between on-prem and cloud.

I guess we can always try to re-hire all those "Sys Admins" we thought we could live without.

LOL?

We're back to the cycle of Mainframe/Terminal --> Personal Computer

"So you want to build OUT your own data center" is a better title.

Curious why California when the kwh is so high here vs Oregon or Washington

Surprised to see pxe. Didn’t realise that was in common use in racks

Booting through the IPMI with virtual media isos over http is dog slow in my experience.

Using PXE to bootstrap an installer kernel (only few MB) over TFTP that fetches the rest of the OS over HTTP is quick and you can pressed/kickstart a machine in minutes.

Are there any alternatives these days? Or just that you weren't expecting to have systems boot off the network?

The later. I was expecting local boot because pxe introduces a rather big dependency for potentially many machines. Issues with network or issues with pxe server and nothing boots

@railway

What would you say are your biggest threats?

Power seems to the big one, especially when the AI power and electric vehicle demand will drive up kWh prices.

Networking seems another one. I'm out of the loop, but it seems to me like the internet is still stuck at 2010 network capacity concepts like "10Gb". If networking had progressed as compute power has (e.g. NVMe disks can provide 25GB/s), 100Gb would be the default server interface? And the ISP uplink would be measured in terabits?

How is the diversity in datacenter providers? In my area, several datacenters were acquired and my instinct would be that: the "move to cloud" has lost smaller providers a lot of customers, and the industry consolidation has given suppliers more power in both controlling the offering and the pricing. Is it a free market with plenty of competitive pricing, or is it edging towards enshittification?

> Networking seems another one. I'm out of the loop, but it seems to me like the internet is still stuck at 2010 network capacity concepts like "10Gb". If networking had progressed as compute power has (e.g. NVMe disks can provide 25GB/s), 100Gb would be the default server interface? And the ISP uplink would be measured in terabits?

High end network interfaces are entering the 800Gbps interface era right now.

also, in 2010 10Gbps network connectivity to end hosts was NOT common. (it was common for router uplinks and interconnects though.

Network interfaces have not scaled as nicely because getting fast enough lasers to handle higher then 100Gbps has been a challenge, and getting to higher speeds basically means doing wave division multiplex over multiple channels across a single fiber.

Also, density of connections per fiber has increased massivly because the cost of DWDM equipment has come down significantly.

I'm surprised you guys are building new!

Tons of Colocation available nearly everywhere in the US, and in the KCMO area, there are even a few dark datacenters available for sale!

cool project none-the-less. Bit jealous actually :P

They're not building new, though—the post is about renting a cage in a datacenter.

The requirements end up being pretty specific, based on workloads/power draw/supply chain

So, while we could have bought something off the shelf, that would have been suboptimal from a specs perspective. Plus then we'd have to source supply chain etc.

By owning not just the servers but the whole supply chain, we have redundancy at every layer, from the machine, to the parts on site (for failures), to the supply chain (refilling those spare parts/expanding capacity/etc)

Can you share a list of dark datacenters that are for sale. They sound interesting as a business.

More info on the cost comparison between all the options would be interesting

We pulled some cost stuff out of the post in final review because we weren't sure it was interesting ... we'll bring it back for a future post

y’all really need to open source that racking modeling tool, that would save sooooo many people so much time

Not OSS but I have developed a tool for modeling racks and much more.

https://schematix.com/video/racks

I've spent more time than I care working in data centers and can tell you that your job req is asking for one person to perform 3 different roles, maybe 4. I guarantee you're going to find a "jack of all trades" and a master of none unless you break them out into these jobs.

Application Developer

DevOps Engineer

Site Reliability Engineer

Storage Engineer

Good luck, hope you pay them well.

There's no reason to attack generalists.

Why would you call colocation "building your own data center"? You could call it "colocation" or "renting space in a data center". What are you building? You're racking. Can you say what you mean?

I have to second this. While it takes mich effort and in-depth knowledge do build up from an “empty” cage it’s still far from dealing with everything from building permits, to plan and realize a data center to code including redundant power lines, AC and fibre.

Still kudos going this path in the cloud-centric time we live in.

Yes, the second is much more work, orders of magnitude at least.

> Yes, the second is much more work, orders of magnitude at least.

I feel it's important to stress that the difficulty level of collocating something, let alone actually building a data center, is exactly what makes cloud computing so enticing and popular.

Everyone focuses on trivia items like OpEx vs CapEx and dynamic scaling, but the massive task of actually plugging in the hardware in a secure setting and get it to work reliably is a massive undertaking.

I just honestly don't agree with that at all. That's the easy bit, the bit I don't enjoy is organising backups and storage in general. But it's not 'hard'.

While it is more complex to actually build out the center , a lot of that is specific to the regional you are doing it.

Thy will vary by country, by state or even county , setting up a DC in the Bay Area and say one in Ohio or Utah is a very different endeavor with different design considerations.

>Thy will vary by country, by state or even county , setting up a DC in the Bay Area and say one in Ohio or Utah is a very different endeavor with different design considerations.

What point are you trying to make? It does not matter where you are in the world, or what local laws exist or permits are required, racking up servers in a cage is much less difficult than physically building a data center (of which racking up servers is a part).

I meant that the learning from doing actual build outs aren't going to translate in other geographies and regulatory climates, not that the work is less difficult or not interesting and important.

Also people doing the build outs of a DC aren't likely keen on talking about permits and confidential agreements in the industry quite publicly.

Yes the title is click baity, but that is par of the course these days.

Sure, every business has confidential agreements which are usually kept secret but there are even on youtube a few people/companies who gave deep insides in the bits and bytes of building a data center from ground up across multiple hours of documentation. And the confidential business agreements in the data center world are up to a certain level the same as any other businesses.

> Thy will vary by country, by state or even county , setting up a DC in the Bay Area and say one in Ohio or Utah is a very different endeavor with different design considerations.

Regarding data centers that cost 9 figures and up:

For the largest players, there’s not a ton of variation. A combination of evaporative cooling towers and chillers are used to reject heat. This is a consequence of evaporative open loop cooling being 2-3x more efficient than a closed-loop system.

There will be multiple medium-voltage electrical services, usually from different utilities or substations, with backup generators and UPSes and paralleling switchgear to handle failover between normal, emergency, and critical power sources.

There’s not a lot of variation since the two main needs of a data center are reliable electricity and the ability to remove heat from the space, and those are well-solved problems in mature engineering disciplines (ME and EE). The huge players are plopping these all across the country and repeatability/reliability is more important than tailoring the build to the local climate.

FWIW my employer has done billions of dollars of data center construction work for some of the largest tech companies (members of Mag7) and I’ve reviewed construction plans for multiple data centers.

You've got more experience there than me, and I've only seen the plans for a single center.

I'll point out that some of the key thermal and power stuff in those plans you saw may have come from the hyperscalers themselves - our experience a dozen years or so ago was that we couldn't just put it out to bid, as the typical big construction players knew how to build old data centers, not new ones, and we had to hire a (very small) engineering team to design it ourselves.

Heat removal is well-solved in theory. Heat removal from a large office building is well-solved in practice - lots of people know exactly what equipment is needed, how to size, install, and control it, what building features are needed for it, etc. Take some expert MEs without prior experience at this, toss them a few product catalogs, and ask them to design a solution from first principles using the systems available and it wouldn't be so easy.

There are people for whom data center heat removal is a solved problem in practice, although maybe not in the same way because the goalposts keep moving (e.g. watts per rack). Things may be different now, but a while back very few of those people were employed by companies who would be willing to work on datacenters they didn't own themselves.

Finally I'd add that "9 figures" seems excessive for building+power+cooling, unless you're talking crazy sizes (100MW?). If you're including the contents, then of course they're insanely expensive.

Issues in building your own physical data center (based on a 15MW location some people I know built): 1 - thermal. To get your PUE down below say 1.2 you need to do things like hot aisle containment or better yet water cooling - the hotter your heat, the cheaper it is to get rid of.[] 2 - power distribution. How much power do you waste getting it to your machines? Can you run them on 220v, so their power supplies are more efficient? 3 - power. You don't just call your utility company and as them to run 10+MW from the street to your building. 4 - networking. You'll probably need redundant dark fiber running somewhere.

1 and 2 are independent of regulatory domain. 3 involves utilities, not governments, and is probably a clusterfck anywhere; 4 isn't as bad (anywhere in the US; not sure elsewhere) because it's not a monopoly, and you can probably find someone to say "yes" for a high enough price.

There are people everywhere who are experts in site acquisition, permits, etc. Not so many who know how to build the thermals and power, and who aren't employed by hyperscalers who don't let them moonlight. And depending on your geographic location, getting those megawatts from your utility may be flat out impossible.

This assumes a new build. Retrofitting an existing building probably ranges from difficult to impossible, unless you're really lucky in your choice of building.

[*] hmm, the one geographic issue I can think of is water availability. If you can't get enough water to run evaporative coolers, that might be a problem - e.g. dumping 10MW into the air requires boiling off I think somewhere around 100K gallons of water a day.

Having been around and through both, setting up a cage or two is very different than the entire facility.

I think you and GP are in agreement.

Do I have stories.

One of the better was the dead possum in the drain during a thunderstorm.

>So do we throw the main switch before we get electroduced? Or do we try to poke enough holes in it that it gets flushed out? And what about the half million in servers that are going to get ruined?

Sign up to my patreon to find out how the story ended.

Give me a link to your patreon

pay to the man's patreon and then tell me the story please!

Dealing with power at that scale, arranging your own ISPs, seems a bit beyond your normal colocation project, but I haven’t bee in the data center space in a very long time.

I worked for a colo provider for a long time. Many tenants arranged for their own ISPs, especially the ones large enough to use a cage.

One of the many reasons we went with Switch for our DC is because they have a service to handle all of that for you. Having stumbled on doing this ourselves before, it can be pretty tricky to negotiate everything.

We had one provider give us a great price and then bait and switch at the last moment to tell us that there is some other massive installation charge that they didn't realize we had to pay.

Switch Connect/Core is based off the old Enron business that Rob (CEO) bought...

https://www.switch.com/switch-connect/ https://www.switch.com/the-core-cooperative/

> Why would you call colocation "building your own data center"?

The cynic in me says this was written by sales/marketing people targeted specifically at a whole new generation of people who've never laid hands on the bare metal or racked a piece of equipment or done low voltage cabling, fiber cabling, and "plug this into A and B power AC power" cabling.

By this, I mean people who've never done anything that isn't GCP, Azure, AWS, etc. Many terminologies related to bare metal infrastructure are misused by people who haven't been around in the industry long enough to have been required to DIY all their own infrastructure on their own bare metal.

I really don't mean any insult to people reading this who've only ever touched the software side, but if a document is describing the general concept of hot aisles and cold aisles to an audience in such a way that it assumes they don't know what those are, it's at a very introductory/beginner level of understanding the OSI layer 1 infrastructure.

I think that's my fault BTW (Railway Founder here). I asked Charith to cut down a bit on the details to make sure it was approachable to a wider audience (And most people have only done Cloud)

I wanted to start off with the 101 content to see if people found it approachable/interesting. He's got like reams and reams of 201, 301, 401

Next time I'll stay out of the writing room!

Sitting on the front page of HN with a good read, and what is ultimately company promo and a careers link seems like a job well done. It made me read/click.

Yes, building a physical DC is much wider scope than colo. This is one part of that, which is also still interesting. The world is built on many, many layers of abstraction which can all take lifetimes to explore. There are non-devs who enjoy learning about software, web-devs who dabble in compilers, systems programmers curious about silicon, EE's that are aspiring physicists, who in turn peek into the universe of pure path (cue yes, that xkcd you're thinking of).

A 'full stack' overview of a standalone DC build still has to set a bound somewhere. This was an approachable intro and look forward to reading more from the layers you operate.

Bro let him at the 401 and higher hahaha!

"Booo who let this guy cook?"

Fair tbh

We will indeed write more on this so this is great feedback for next time!

I mean the more people realize the the cloud is now a bad deal the better.

When the original aws instance came out it would take you about two years or on demand to pay for the same hardware on prem. Now its between two weeks for ml heavy instances to six months for medium CPU instances.

It just doesn't make sence to use the cloud for anything past prototyping unless you want Bazos to have a bigger yacth.

How to build a house:

Step 1: sign a lease at an apartment

its crazy how this is actually true in terms of this sentiment , they should probably change the name of blog article.

HN people are smart

Not saying I don't agree with you but most tech businesses that have their own "Data center" usually have a private cage in a Colo.

They usually don’t say they are building their own datacenter, though. It is different to say something like, “our website runs in our datacenter” than saying you built a datacenter. You would still say, “at our office buildings”, even if you are only renting a few offices in an office park.

Don't the hyperscalers outsource datacenter construction and operation? Maybe it's not clear where to draw the line because the datacenters are owned or operated by disposable shell companies for various reasons.

We built an office building would be the analogy.

When you rent an apartment, you can still invite people to your apartment for drinks. But you don't claim to have built an apartment.

Come to my office and tell me how it’s not actually my office because it’s leased by my company from the investment vehicle for institutional investors that owns the building that stands on land owned by someone else again that was stolen by the British anyway and therefore calling it “my office” makes me a fool and a liar and I should just “say what I mean”.

But if I said I’m building an office, would you assume I’m furnishing an empty rented space, or constructing the building?

I’d imagine you were recently elected and hiring staffers.

I think the word GP is objecting to isn't "your own" but rather "build".

For people who have taken empty lots and constructed new data centers (ie, the whole building) on them from scratch, the phrase "building a datacenter" involves a nonzero amount of concrete.

OP seems to have built out a data hall - which is still a cool thing in its own right! - but for someone like me who's interested in "baking an apple pie from scratch", the mismatch between the title and the content was slightly disappointing.

It doesn't matter which word. Which I should confess makes my remark above appear, in retrospect, to be something of a trap; because when parsing ambiguity, it's a matter of simple courtesy and wisdom to choose the interpretation that best illustrates the point rather than complaining about the ones that don't.

I say this not merely to be a pompous smartass but also because it illustrates and echoes the very same problem the top-level comment embodies, viz. that some folks struggle with vernacular, nonliteral, imprecise, and nonlinear language constructs. Yet grasping this thistle to glark one's grok remains parcel-and-part of comprehension and complaining about it won't remeaningify the barb'd disapprehensible.

Your disappointment, nevertheless, seems reasonable, because the outcome was, after all, a bait-and-route.

When you invite a girl/guy over, do you say "let's meet at my place" or "let's meet at the place I'm renting"? The possessive pronoun does not necessarily express ownership, it can just as well express occupancy.

I wouldn't oppose telling a client "we can meet at your data centre". I would not tell my wife "we need to discuss building our apartment complex" when we are planning interior decorations in our flat.

If I said to my wife, “let’s build a home together”, she would be halfway done with engaging a promising firm of radical young architects and negotiating for April delivery of pre-stressed concrete, Italian art glass, and Japanese tatami mats by close of business.

Haha fair enough

> Come to my office and tell me how it’s not actually my office (...)

I think you're failing to understand the meaning and the point of "building your own datacenter".

Yes, you can talk about your office all you'd like. Much like OP can talk about there server farm and their backend infrastructure.

What you cannot talk about is your own office center. You do not own it. You rent office space. You only have a small fraction of the work required to operate an office, because you effectively offloaded the hard part to your landlord.

Let’s chat about inferring meaning from pragmatic context at your data.

It's more like saying you built the building. (I've bootstrapped datacenters to t2)

The british are always the ones to blame :')

Yes. (except for when it's the Vatican, etc)

It seems a bit disingenuous but it’s common practice. Even the hyperscalers, who do have their own datacenters, include their colocation servers in the term “datacenter.” Good luck finding the actual, physical location of a server in GCP europe-west2-a (“London”). Maybe it’s in a real Google datacenter in London! Or it could be in an Equinix datacenter in Slough, one room away from AWS eu-west-1.

Cloudflare has also historically used “datacenter” to refer to their rack deployments.

All that said, for the purpose of the blog post, “building your own datacenter” is misleading.

You're correct, there are multiple flavors of Google Cloud Locations. The "Google concrete" ones are listed at google.com/datacenters and London isn't on that list, today.

cloud.google.com/about/locations lists all the locations that GCE offers service, which is a super set of the large facilities that someone would call a "Google Datacenter". I liked to mostly refer to the distinction as Google concrete (we built the building) or not. Ultimately, even in locations that are shared colo spaces, or rented, it's still Google putting custom racks there, integrating into the network and services, etc. So from a customer perspective, you should pick the right location for you. If that happens to be in a facility where Google poured the concrete, great! If not, it's not the end of the world.

P.S., I swear the certification PDFs used to include this information (e.g., https://cloud.google.com/security/compliance/iso-27018?hl=en) but now these are all behind "Contact Sales" and some new Certification Manager page in the console.

Edit: Yes! https://cloud.google.com/docs/geography-and-regions still says:

> These data centers might be owned by Google and listed on the Google Cloud locations page, or they might be leased from third-party data center providers. For the full list of data center locations for Google Cloud, see our ISO/IEC 27001 certificate. Regardless of whether the data center is owned or leased, Google Cloud selects data centers and designs its infrastructure to provide a uniform level of performance, security, and reliability.

So someone can probably use web.archive.org to get the ISO-27001 certificate PDF from whenever the last time it was still up.

> P.S., I swear the certification PDFs used to include this information (e.g., https://cloud.google.com/security/compliance/iso-27018?hl=en) but now these are all behind "Contact Sales" and some new Certification Manager page in the console.

This is not good, I can't think of any actual reason to hide those certificates.

For comparison, AWS makes their ISO-27001 certificate available at https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/iso-27001-faqs/ and also cites the certifying agent, most of which have a search page from where you can find all the certificates they've issued.

I found this list: https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/locations/

I cannot believe that they never had a UK DC until recently. I guess they (originally) chose Ireland instead.

The hyperscalers are absolutely not colo-ing their general purpose compute at Equinix! A cage for routers and direct connect, maybe some limited Edge CDN/compute at most.

Even where they do lease wholesale space, you'd be hard pushed to find examples of more than one in a single building. If you count them as Microsoft, Google, AWS then I'm not sure I can think of a single example off the top of my head. Only really possible if you start including players like IBM or Oracle in that list.

Maybe leasing wholesale space shouldn’t be considered colocation, but GCP absolutely does this and the Slough datacenter was a real example.

I can’t dig up the source atm but IIRC some Equinix website was bragging about it (and it wasn’t just about direct connect to GCP).

Google doesn't put GCP compute inside Equinx Slough. I could perhaps believe if they have a cage of routers and perhaps even CDN boxes/Edge, but no general cloud compute.

Google and AWS will put routers inside Equinx Slough sure, but that's literally written on the tin, and the only way a carrier hotel could work.

Then why do they obfuscate the location of their servers? If they were all in Google datacenters, why not let me see where my VM is?

Security reasons, I presume? Otherwise it would be trivial for an adversary to map out their resources by sampling VM rentals over a moderate time-period.

I’m very naive on the subject here - what advantage would this give someone?

The knowledge of blast radii.

Gives whole new meaning to “reverse engineering”

Well, the alternative name for it is "backwards engineering" for a reason.

The best part about adamantly making such a claim is that anybody who knows better also knows better than to break NDA and pull a Warthunder to prove that the CSPs do use colo facilities, so you're not going to get anyone who knows better to disagree with you and say AWS S3 or GCP compute is colo-ed at a specific colo provider.

Yup, I assume AWS, Azure and GCP would NDA this info.

That being said, this page amusingly mentions colocation in reference to media destruction: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/compliance/assurance/assur...

They consume wholesale space, but not retail Colo for general compute, that's all I'm saying.

Equinx is retail, with only a couple of exceptions, although I know they're trying to grow the wholesale side.

Hyperscalers use colos all the time for edge presence.

See my sibling comment :).

Indeed, I've seen "data center" maps, and was surprised they were just a tenant in some other guys data center.

Which makes you a subletter, and the one with the highest fee of the whole chain…

> Which makes you a subletter, and the one with the highest fee of the whole chain…

I don't know what point you tried to make. Any business in the whole world survives because they sell things for more money than what it takes to keep their business running. Is it surprising that they charge their customers more than their infrastructure costs?

> It seems a bit disingenuous but it’s common practice. Even the hyperscalers, who do have their own datacenters, include their colocation servers in the term “datacenter.”

I think you're conflating things.

Those hypothetical hyperscalers can advertise their availability zones and deployment regions, but they do not claim they built the data centers. They provide a service, but they do not make broad claims on how they built infrastructure.

> You could call it "colocation" or "renting space in a data center". What are you building? You're racking. Can you say what you mean?

TFA explain what they're doing, they literally write this:

"In general you have three main choices: Greenfield buildout (...), Cage Colocation (getting a private space inside a provider's datacenter enclosed by mesh walls), or Rack colocation...

We chose the second option"

I don't know how much clearer they can be.

The title is "So you want to build your own data center" and the article is about something else. Its nice that they say that up front, but its valid to criticize the title.

Only one of those options is ‘building your own data center’, and I’ll give you three guesses as to which one it is. I’ll even give you a hint: ‘greenfield’ is in the correct answer.

[dead]