AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different (freeman.vc)

Article summary

The article discusses the reliability of AWS and GCP, with a focus on their ability to perform live migrations. However, the article's content is not available, and the discussion is based on the comments. The comments reveal that GCP has a robust live migration feature, while AWS's live migration capabilities are limited. The discussion also touches on the technical aspects of live migration and its implementation in various cloud providers.

Main themes

• live migration
• cloud reliability
• AWS vs GCP
• VMware
• infrastructure maintenance
• performance implications

What commenters say

• GCP has a more robust live migration feature compared to AWS.
• AWS does not have live migration for all instance types, and it may require stopping and starting instances.
• Live migration is not always possible or desirable, especially in cases of hardware failure.
• VMware has had live migration capabilities for years, but its public cloud offering has been criticized for being inferior.
• The effectiveness of live migration depends on various factors, including the underlying infrastructure and the type of maintenance being performed.
• Some cloud providers, such as Linode, also use live migrations for maintenance.
• The implementation of live migration can have significant performance implications, including packet loss and performance hits.
• The transparency and seamlessness of live migration can vary between providers, with some offering more seamless experiences than others.