That said, the best level of basic support at the most reasonable price seems to be offered by Azure. Support plans are complex, and warrant much closer examination based on what issues your business is likely to encounter. It also has good response times (especially compared to AWS, whose listed response time at this tier falls behind all three other services), although it doesn’t include API support or third-party software, which AWS does. Azure costs $100 a month, which makes it stand out in this category. Google costs $100 a month per user, while IBM starts at $200 and goes up “based on consumption”. AWS starts at $100, but rises sharply as a percentage of overall AWS costs (if you spend $10,000 a month on AWS, support costs an additional $1,000). The next tiers up, which will interest most SMBs, vary in pricing. Conversely, IBM offers 24/7 support through a ticket system with its free plan. The least extensive of these is Google, whose free plan only covers billing issues, while AWS and Azure are business-hours only by email. Free technical support is pretty limited in each case, but especially so with Azure and Google. Support is another area where cloud providers differ greatly. SupportĪzure demonstrates lower latency in a number of use-cases (Image credit: ThousandEyes) You’ll want to look at where most of your data is coming from, and where it has to travel based on your business’ activities, to accurately compare speed and stability. While the platform is investing in infrastructure, it nonetheless demonstrates the highest latency levels in several regions, including Asia and Europe. That said, geography is a key factor in determining performance, and no cloud provider has managed global consistency. First, Microsoft and Google have spent decades building out extensive, global, private networks, whereas AWS relies heavily on the public internet. PerformanceĪccording to a study (opens in new tab) by network intelligence specialist ThousandEyes, there are some important differences in performance between these top providers. Many third-party solutions exist for monetizing a service built on your cloud platform, but it’s worth mentioning that AWS has built-in online billing capabilities: sign up customers and meter their usage of services, and Amazon will bill them based on prices you’ve set. Businesses interested in developing flexible, highly extensible “smart” devices will want to give heavy preference to AWS. ![]() While all four providers offer IoT functionality, data analytics, trigger functions, and specific IoT security, only Amazon offers an operating system for microcontrollers - like those used in machinery and appliances - which makes it easy to connect such devices to the cloud and benefit from the platform's services. AWS Scheduler has a similar functionality, but enables the starting and stopping of whole EC2 and RDS instances: a time- and money-saving feature, but one that lacks the granular control of Azure and IBM’s solutions. ![]() IBM’s Workload Scheduler and Microsoft’s Azure Logic App make it easy to run individual jobs, with scheduled or rules-based execution. One area where Azure and IBM actually pull ahead of AWS (and Google) is in scheduling. Google offers “Preemptible VMs,” which is a suitable solution: short-lived virtual machines capable of running batch processes. If job orchestration is another important feature for you, then IBM probably won’t meet your needs, as its batch-processing capabilities are limited compared to AWS Batch and Azure Batch. Similarly, Google Cloud doesn’t offer a simple solution for cloud-based backup of virtual environments - and both Google and IBM fall short in disaster recovery, where AWS and Azure excel.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |