I'm using a Free-Tier VM instance.
I deleted and finalized 2 Boot Volumes(tagged Always Free).
And create new 2 Boot Volumes.
I can't see the tags written 'Always Free'
Will I be charged for the two newly created Boot Volumes after the free trial expires?
Is it possible your total block volume use exceeds these limits?
100 GB total of combined boot volume and block volume Always Free
Block Volume storage.
Five total volume backups (boot volume and
block volume combined).
Detailed limits are in this documentation.
Will I be charged for the two newly created Boot Volumes after the
free trial expires?
As long as your usage is restricted to Always-Free resources, you should be able to use them for unlimited period of time. Please review the documentation for additional information.
I solved.
I delete all resources. and create again. it works. new instances and volumes are all have the tags 'Always Free'.
Related
I wanted to create a Always Free Eligible VM Instance (VM.Standard.E2.1.Micro) on the Oracle Cloud, but it's not on my list.
And when I check my limit for VM.Standard.E2.1.Micro in
"Governance > Limits, Quotas and Usage", it say 0.
How can I create one? My Home Region is Canada Southeast (Montreal), ca-montreal-1.
My account's trial is not over yet. Should I wait till my trial is over to create it?
As per the Always Free website, at any time you can have up to the following:
Two Oracle Autonomous Databases with powerful tools like Oracle Application Express (APEX) and Oracle SQL Developer
Two Oracle Cloud Infrastructure Compute VMs; Block, Object, and Archive Storage; Load Balancer and data egress; Monitoring and Notifications
If you already are at capacity for this, then you would not be able to add an additional. Further details of Always Free resources can be found here - https://docs.oracle.com/en-us/iaas/Content/FreeTier/resourceref.htm
The always free provide you with the following
2 Compute virtual machines with 1/8 OCPU and 1 GB memory each.
2 Block Volumes Storage
100 GB total.
10 GB Object Storage.
10 GB Archive Storage.
Resource Manager: managed Terraform.
Focus on the specs of the free one
VM.Standard.E2.1.Micro is not available for ca-montreal-1 at this time (January 2021).
I created a new account in the Ashburn region where VM.Standard.E2.1.Micro is available.
I had my app in the app engine(Flex). But it's costing a lot with no traffic yet!
I decided to move that to Kubernetes Engine which utilizes the compute engine.
Another reason I moved to Kubernetes because I wanted to run docker container services like Memcached that come with an added cost in App Engine Flex.
If you are tempted to ask why am not using App Engine Standard which is economical, that's because I couldn't find any easy way if at all there's any for running services like GDAL & Memcached.
I thought Kubernetes should be a cheaper option, but what I am seeing is the opposite.
I have even had to change the machine type to g1-small from N1...
Am I missing something?
Any ideas on how to reduce cost in Kubernetes / compute engine instances?
Please have a look at the documentation GKE Pricing and App Engine Pricing:
GKE clusters accrue a management fee of $0.10 per cluster per hour,
irrespective of cluster size or topology. One zonal (single-zone or
multi-zonal) cluster per billing account is free.
GKE uses Compute Engine instances for worker nodes in the cluster. You
are billed for each of those instances according to Compute Engine's
pricing, until the nodes are deleted. Compute Engine resources are
billed on a per-second basis with a one-minute minimum usage cost.
and
Apps running in the flexible environment are deployed to virtual
machine types that you specify. These virtual machine resources are
billed on a per-second basis with a 1 minute minimum usage cost.
Billing for the memory resource includes the memory your app uses plus
the memory that the runtime itself needs to run your app. This means
your memory usage and costs can be higher than the maximum memory you
request for your app.
So, both GAE Flex and GKE cluster are "billed on a per-second basis with a 1 minute minimum usage cost".
To estimate usage cost in advance you can use Google Cloud Pricing Calculator, also you can use it to estimate how changing parameters of your cluster can help you to reduce cost and which solution is more cost effective.
In addition, please have a look at the documentation Best practices for running cost-optimized Kubernetes applications on GKE.
I'm starting a project where a CloudSQL instance would be a great fit however I've noticed they are twice the price for the same specification VM on GCP.
I've been told by several devops guys I work with that they are billed by usage only. Which would be perfect for me. However on their pricing page it states "Instance pricing for MySQL is charged for every second that the instance is running".
https://cloud.google.com/sql/pricing#2nd-gen-pricing
I also see several people around the web saying they are usage only.
Cloud SQL or VM Instance to host MySQL Database
Am I interpreting Googles pricing pages incorrectly?
Am I going to be billed for the instance being on or for its usage?
Billed by usage
All depend what you mean by USAGE. When you run a Cloud SQL instance, it's like a server (compute engine). Until you stop it, you will pay for it. It's not a pay-per-request pricing, as you can have with BigQuery.
With Cloud SQL, you will also pay the storage that you use. And the storage can grow automatically according with the usage. Be careful the storage can't be reduce!! even if you delete data in database!
Price is twice a similar Compute engine
True! A compute engine standard1-n1 is about $20 per month and a same config on Cloud SQL is about $45.
BUT, what about the price of the management of your own SQL instance?
You have to update/patch the OS
You have to update/patch the DB engine (MySQL or Postgres)
You have to manage the security/network access
You have to perform snapshots, ensure that the restoration works
You have to ensure the High Availability (people on call in case of server issue)
You have to tune the Database parameters
You have to watch to your storage and to increase it in case of needs
You have to set up manually your replicas
Is it worth twice the price? For me, yes. All depends of your skills and your opinion.
There are a lot of hidden configuration options that when modified can quickly halve your costs per option.
Practically speaking, GCP's SQL product only works by running 24/7, there is no time-based 'by usage' option, short of you manually stopping and restarting the compute engine.
There are a lot of tricks you can follow to lower costs, you can read many of them here: https://medium.com/#the-bumbling-developer/can-you-use-google-cloud-platform-gcp-cheaply-and-safely-86284e04b332
Due to some mix-up during planning we ended up with several worker nodes running 23TB drives which are now almost completely unused (we keep data on external storage). As the drives are only wasting money at the moment, we need to shrink them to a reasonable size.
Using weresync I was able to fully clone the drive to a much smaller one but apparently you can't swap the boot drive in GCE (which makes no sense to me). Is there a way to achieve that or do I need to create new workers using the images? If so, is there any other config I need to copy to the new instance in order for it to be automatically joined to the cluster?
Dataproc does not support VMs configuration changes in running clusters.
I would advise you to delete old cluster and create new one with workers disk size that you need.
I ended up creating a ticket with GCP support - https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/120865687 - to get an official answer to that question. Got an that this is not possible currently but should be available shortly (within months) in the beta GCP CLI, possibly in the Console on a later data as well.
Went on with a complete rebuild of the cluster.
In the Persistent Disk Size Limits documentation here it says:
Standard, high memory, and high CPU machine types can attach up to 16 persistent disks.
Is this a limit that can be raised?
We would like to run many docker containers per machine and give each of them a persistent disk (so they aren't tied specifically to that machine). The current limit would only let us run 16 containers per VM, which is a much lower number than we'd like.
On AWS HVM instances, we can attach up to 73 EBS volumes.
Thanks.
No, it presently cannot. I have just been advised that the number of PDs attached to an instance is fixed.
According to Amazon's documentation, it is inadvisable to attach more than 40 disks per instance.