I have been looking everywhere I can think of and can't seem to find the answer to this. How does Google Cloud SQL account for overages? For example, their smallest instance is the D0 package that allows I/O of 200k per day. What happens when an instance reaches that limit?
Does Google charge an increased rate for overages, are you locked out of I/O (Access) for the day, do they bump you another 200K and charge you an extra $0.36?
I was reading their pricing tier here but they don't mention anything about overages: https://cloud.google.com/products/cloud-sql/#pricing
Disk I/O overage is charged the same as per use disk I/O. The current price is $0.1 per million disk I/O operations.
Let's say your D0 instance has used 300k I/O operations for the day. The extra 100k I/O operations will incur a cost of $0.1, since it'll be rounded up to the nearest million for billing purposes.
Here is a better table that defines pricing in detail https://developers.google.com/cloud-sql/pricing
Related
I created a dashboard in the Cloud Monitoring to monitor BI Engine metrics. I have a chart to measure the Reservation Used Bytes. The chart keeps changing values ranging from 30GB to 430MB, according to the chart. The time frame between days and weeks also does not change the measure chart. Why is the measuring changing throughout time to what appears to be from high to low and back to high? and, how can see how many bites have been utilized in total? Seems
You are using a metric that is coupled to current usage, so it is expected to vary over time with increasing or decreasing values.
https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/docs/bi-engine-monitor#metrics
Reservation Used Bytes: Total capacity used in one Google Cloud project
If you need the total bytes you need to switch to this metric:
Reservation Total Bytes Total capacity allocated to one Google Cloud project
I have a python application writing pubsub msg into Bigquery. The python code use the google-cloud-bigquery library and the TableData.insertAll() method quota is 10,000 requests per second per table.Quotas documentation.
Cloud Run container auto scaling is set to 100 with 1000 requests per container.So technically, I should be able to reach 10 000 requests/sec right? With the BQ insert API being the biggest bottleneck.
I only have a few 100 requests per sec at the moment, with multiple service running at the same time.
CPU and RAM at 50%.
Now confirming your project structure, and a few details given in the comments; I would then review the Pub/Sub quotas and limits, especially the Quota and the Resource limits, both tables where you can check this information depending on the size and the Throughput quota units sections tells you how to calculate quota usage.
I would answer your question as a yes, you are able to reach 10,000 req/sec. And as in this question depending on the byte size you can have 10,000 row inserts unless the recommendation is 500.
The concurrency in Cloud Run can be modified in case you need to change it.
These may be few basic questions.
When i load data into BQ tables, where exactly data stored? (If billing is already enabled). if it is data center, what would be data center capacity? Does our data co-exist with other users data?
When we fire queries, How our queries processed? What is the default compute engine used for this?
How can we increase query processing capacity?
Thanks
CP
BigQuery datacenter capacity is practically unlimited. If you plan to upload petabytes in a very short time frame you might need to contact support first just to make sure, but for normal big loads everything should be fine.
BigQuery doesn't use compute engine, but a series of very large clusters where all queries run. That's the secret to a low cost per query, without ongoing costs per hour like other alternatives.
BigQuery increases the number of CPUs involved in your query elastically as the query needs. You don't need to manage storage nor processing capacity.
I searched online for awhile about what is "Excessive resource usage" on SQL Azure, still cannot get an idea.
Some articles suggest query takes too long, too much memory etc will cause "Excessive resource usage". But If I use simple query, simple data structure, what will happen?
For example: I get a 1G SQL Azure as session state. Since session is a very small string, and save/delete all the time, I don't think it will grow to 1G for millions of session simultaneously. You can calculate, for 1 million session, 20 char each, only take 20M space, consider 20 minutes expire etc. Cannot even close to 1G. But the queries, should be lots and lots. Each query will be very simple and fast by index.
I wanna know, if this use will be consider as "Excessive resource usage"? Is there any hard number to limit you on the usage?
Btw, as example above, if all happen in same datacenter, so all cost is 1G database which is $10 a month, right?
Unfortunately the answer is 'it depends'. I think that probably the best reference (with guidance) on the SQL Azure Query Throttle is here: TechNet Article on SQL Azure Perormance This will povide details about the metrics that are monitored and the mechanism of the throttle.
The reason that I say it depends is that the throttle is non-deterministic for any given user. This is because the throttle will be activated based on the total load on the node (physical SQL Server in Azure DC). While the subscribers who will get throttled are the subscribers delivering the greatest load the level at which the throttle kicks in will depend on the total load on the node. SO if you are on a quiet node (where other tenant DBs are relatively inactive) then you will be able to put through a bunch more throughput than if you are on a busy node.
It is very appealing to use 1GB SQL Azure DBs for session state storage; you've identified the cost benefits. You are taking a risk though. One way to mitigate this risk is to partition across at least two SQL Azure 1GB DBs and adjust the load yourself based on whether one of the DBs starts hitting the throttle.
Another option if you want determinism for throughput is to use the WIndows Azure Cache to back your sesion state store. The Cache has hard pre-defined limits for query throughput so you can plan for it more easily Azure Caching FAQ including Limits. The Cache approach is probably a bit more expensive but with a lower risk of problems.
I have a website that attracts about 30,000 visitors per month. It has a lot of photos and PDF files which eat up a good deal of bandwidth. It's hosted by site5.com, which offers unlimited bandwidth & storage for ~$5 per month. According to site5's statistics, my site has about 20 GB of downloads per day, but I've seen it as high as 116 GB. Uploads range from 5-15 GB daily. (Though, I don't really upload things everyday, so I don't know where they get those numbers from.)
In anticipation of growing my site even more, perhaps by hosting videos, high-res photos, etc., I was looking into other storage options, even though site5 has been pretty good. Specifically, amazon.com's Simple Storage Service (S3) looks pretty good and is supposed to be a "highly scalable, reliable, fast, inexpensive data storage infrastructure."
Using Amazon's Simple Monthly Calculator, I multiplied out my worst-case scenario numbers:
Storage: 2 GB
Data Transfer-in: 15 GB/day * 31 days = 465 GB/month
Data Transfer-out: 116 GB/day * 31 days = 3596 GB/month
With those numbers alone, the calculator estimates my monthly bill to be a whopping $658.27!!! That's insane! Is anyone here using S3? Are your bills outrageous?
Wow, are you sure about those stats? I suppose that's possible, but you're lucky that your host hasn't given you the boot. Leasing a dedicated server will typically get you somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5TB/month for at least 20 times what you are paying now. If you're doing 3.5TB for $5 per month and your host isn't complaining, don't even think about moving.
(note: most unlimited plans are indeed limited by the company's terms of service, which usually allows them to give anyone the boot for using "too many" resources.)
I would try to find some way to verify your stats before you continue.
$5/3500GB is $0.0014 per gig. That's insane.
3.6TB/month is kind of a lot. Just as a sanity-check, my internet connection seems to deliver somewhere around 100kB/sec reception if I'm lucky (I assume the send/receive rat are about the same). At that bandwidth limit it would take my computer 417 days sending continuously to deliver that amount of data.
10c per gigabyte seems pretty reasonable to me. NearlyFreeSpeech.net charges $1/gigabyte delivered but that decreases to 20c/gigabyte at high volumes. Mosso charges 22c/GB delivered.
If you are paying $5 for unlimited transfer and storage I would stick with your current provider as they are offering something that no-one else is going to be able to offer you for that price.
S3 is also a content distribution network, it has certain uptime guarantees, data storage guarantees, your host probably does not. When Amazon says they can deliver your 116 GB a day they really mean it, whereas your host is probably overselling their capacity and hoping people don't really use their unlimited transfer.
You are getting a steal in terms of what you use. Good luck finding that elsewhere.