Comment by dekhn
9 months ago
If you're a GCP customer with a TAM, here's how to make them squirm. Ask them what protections GCP has in place, on your account, that would prevent GCP from inadvertently deleting large amounts of resources if GCP makes an administrative error.
They'll point to something that says this specific problem was alleviated (by deprecating the tool that did it, and automating more of the process), and then you can persist: we know you've fixed this problem, then followup: will a human review this large-scale deletion before the resources are deleted?
From what I can tell (I worked for GCP aeons ago, and am an active user of AWS for even longer) GCP's human-based protection measures are close to non-existent, and much less than AWS. Either way, it's definitely worth asking your TAM about this very real risk.
Give 'em hell.
This motivates the TAM's to learn to work the system better. They will never be able to change things on their own, but sometimes you get escalation path promises and gentlemen's agreements.
Enough screaming TAM's may eventually motivate someone high up to take action. Someday.
Way in which TAMs usually actually fix things:
- It gets closed as wontfix. Google never hires a human to do a job well, if AI/ML can do the same job badly
Does the ARR calculation consider the lifetime of cloud credits given to burned customers to prevent them from moving to a competitor?
In other words can UniSuper be confident in getting support from Google next time?
1 reply →
If you are lucky!
I work for a CSP (not GCP) so I may be a little cynical on the topic.
1 reply →
Pitch it as an opportunity for a human at Google to reach out and attempt to retain a customer when someone has their assets scheduled for deletion. Would probably get more traction internally, and has a secondary effect of ensuring it's clear to everyone that things are about to be nuked.