|
|
|
|
|
|
by mayank
3746 days ago
|
|
|
> AWS has "three" queuing systems, "two" storage solutions with different API's and different quirks. Google just has one and its nails the use cases for queuing and storage. This is not currently true. Google has: Datastore, Cloud SQL, Bigtable, BigQuery and Cloud Storage [1]. Each is intended for a different use case, as are Amazon's offerings. [1] https://cloud.google.com/datastore/docs/concepts/overview#da... |
|
|
For queuing AWS has at least SQS and SNS, both of which solve roughly half of what's commonly desired from a queuing system. Google Cloud PubSub coalesces both of these behind a single API that provides clear support for common queuing patterns (1:1, 1:n, n:1, n:n).
In terms of storage, I think what the OP was referring to was S3 versus Glacier when compared against Cloud Storage (which offers competitors to both S3 and Glacier within the same API -- just mark a bucket as Nearline as pay less for cold stored objects).
If you count all of the additional AWS services that are logical equivalents to the Google ones mentioned you have SimpleDB, RDS, DynamoDB, and Redshift. So yes, many options for many different use cases, but Google coalesces things under a single API where the "verbs" are the same (as in the case of blob storage).