The previous post contains a diagram from the white paper that you can find under: http://systems.ethz.pubzone.org/servlet/Attachment?attachmentId=76&versionId=1363456.
Here, I would like to post the conclusions:
“This paper presented the results of a first study of the end-to-end
performance and cost of running enterprise web applications with
OLTP workloads on alternative cloud services. Since the market is
still immature, the alternative services varied greatly both in cost
and performance. Most services had significant scalability issues.
An interesting observation was to see how the alternative services
behave in overload situations. With regard to cost, it became clear
that the alternative providers have different business models and
target different kinds of applications: Google seems to be more interested
in small applications with light workloads whereas Azure
is currently the most affordable service for medium to large services.
Public clouds are often criticized for a lack of support to
upload large data volumes. This observation could be confirmed.
It is still difficult to upload, say, 1 TB or more of raw data through
the APIs provided by the providers.
The more fundamental question of what is the right data management
architecture for cloud computing could not be answered.
It is still unclear whether the observed results are an artifact of the
level of maturity of the studied services or fundamental to the chosen
architecture. We hope that this work has pathed the way to a
continuous monitoring of progress on alternative approaches and
products for data management in the cloud.“
I have to admit, I love the statement: “…whereas Azure is currently the most affordable service for medium to large services.”.