Hi, unfortunately you are comparing apples and oranges. Windows licensing is a complex topic, controlled by the licensing rules Microsoft enforces. These rules are different for multi-tenant public cloud providers offering IaaS services than a vendor selling single tenant, dedicated hardware. That is a different business model, and different cost structure, and has very different rules from Microsoft.
At a high level, we have a strong partner relationship with Microsoft, and have made many suggestions on how they could improve the flexibility for customers to run Windows workloads in hyperscale clouds. We hope they’ll implement some of these soon, so we can offer the kinds of options you are looking for.
Hi, there's not really a reason that you need to treat a VM running Windows "Server" as if it's a "web server" just because the word "Server" is in the title, if that's the basis of your recommendation. You can use it to access a desktop-like experience if you desire via RDP. Anyway, we're currently not able to offer Windows 10 due to Microsoft licensing restrictions, so we'll merge this suggestions with other similar ones posted here.
While we hear your feedback and share your wishes, the comparison for pricing of what you're getting is really to look at the cost of a Windows VM in any major public cloud provider, where you can walk up and pay for one for 10 minutes with no strings, no commitments. You'll likely find that GCE's VM options for Windows are very competitively priced for that type of product (which is the product that Microsoft's rules make it feasible to offer at this time).
Thanks for your feedback, please refer to our previous status update:
"Unfortunately the prices we can offer are closely related to what Microsoft charges us to offer the license. We believe that our prices are very competitive with other public cloud vendors for the same version of Windows – Datacenter edition of Server 2008r2, 2012, or 2016.
Please make sure you are comparing the same things. Some other vendors may offer desktop or workstation version of Windows, with dedicated hardware, but that is not generally possible in public clouds, given Microsoft’s licensing rules."
This feature is under active development, and will be available in a future release. Due to the nature of deployments, we cannot predict the exact timeline.
Note to commenters: with this item, we are only tracking the ability to have a bit in the API that prevents delete operations from succeeding. Please file separate feature requests for separate feature ideas, so users can vote on them independently. 2FA re-auth in the console, for example, is generally a different ask and there are many design aspects there that are not related to a "deletion protection" bit.
Hello, thanks for your suggestion. Im’ sorry to say that we are only able to support this forum in English at this time, as most of the Product Management team that runs UserVoice is located in the US. please see comments for more details.
Hello, we were still hoping you could provide more detail on your feature request. What password are you looking to have reset via email? Why via email? Note that we don't in general output passwords, but rather the standard way to login to a Linux VM is through SSH, and for Windows there is a capability in the Cloud Console to generate or reset the administrative password.
If you are able to post some additional comments on how you believe the proposed feature should work, we would be happy to consider this. We're not completely sure what you're proposing based on the title alone. Thanks!
Translated title to English via Google Translate.
Thanks, we understand your concern and are investigating whether there is a better way to meet everyone’s needs in the future.
Thanks for the feedback, we're working on improvements here. I'll be merging this request with similar ones that exist already.
Hi Matthew, thanks for filing this. Unfortunately the “defects” sub areas of UserVoice are kind of defunct and we’re hoping to close them, as it’s not really staffed for interactive support. That said, I’ve flagged this post to the GCF PM to take a look at. For future reference, our primary place for bug filing is here:
(you can find links to all the issue tracker areas from: https://cloud.google.com/support/docs/issue-trackers)
Matthew, I'm very sorry to hear that. I'll contact you directly, as I'd like to make sure your feedback makes it directly to our support team leadership. This is not the kind of experience we would like our customers to have, of course. :/
Thanks, this is a great suggestion, and we’re considering it along with some other improvements to backup and snapshot scenarios.
Sorry to see how frustrated you are, Anonymous. I'm not sure why you believe that we think it is difficult to comprehend the feature request or that "some team at Google is failing," but I can assure you that neither are the case.
This is one of hundreds of feature requests we receive from customers, and one of the purposes of this forum is to help give users a way to voice their needs, such as voting for which of those hundreds are the most needed. We do our best to provide the best product we can, and add functionality that will be most valuable to the most users (given that no team, anywhere, ever has enough time to do absolutely everything).
Despite the fact that this feature request has only received 19 votes so far, and is thus well outside the "most requested" items, it is something we are evaluating and would hope to implement in the future.
Thanks, the team is evaluating this and would like to provide it at some point in the future. It’s great to hear about your interest in a managed MSSQL offering, and I hope we’ll hear from many others who also want this. :)
Thanks, still definitely on our radar. Sorry this entry is a little stale, and we're not seeing as many votes as I suspect are really out there for it, but it remains a key area we're studying/planning, regardless.
This is something we are planning to improve, hopefully later in the year.
One other note - Copy Template as available in the UI is not a core API feature, but something the UI is doing on top, which may explain why the behavior you're describing isn't quite what you want. However, we should be able to patch that, at least. Please comment back if you like about which settings it is/isn't copying and I'll see if we can adjust that without breaking users' expectations generally.
Thanks, Carl, those are great insights, and we agree. I've updated the status to indicate that we are actively planning improvements here (the possibility of different behavior when in use vs. not that you note is one example of something that takes some extra design time).
Thanks for the feedback in these comments. I think at this point we understand what users are looking to do, and we're investigating changes that would allow this. The evolution of this limitation is due to what Scott described earlier - templates started as a requirement for MIGs, but they have since evolved into a more general "make a VM like this" function of the platform. I hope we can make improvements here in the near future.
Moving to be the master issue request for SMTP port unblocking.
Thanks for your comments; we understand your frustration. The state of mail delivery and IP reputation in the industry is very frustrating for everyone that has to deal with it. While we recognize that our current policy is an inconvenience for some customers, it is a very small set of customers that encounter these issues. To wit, this issue has been on UserVoice (where it was imported from another DB) for over a year and it has only 4 votes. This tells us that only a small percentage of users encounter this problem.
We are sometimes able to consider exceptions to this policy for customers with strong reputations and legitimate needs. If this applies to your situation, please file a case through Google Cloud Support and we can review the situation.
Thanks, we’ll look at the change network ability. Please feel free to file a separate feature request for multiple NICs if you desire (that may prove more popular than this other request).
Note: multiple network interfaces is tracked in a separate item. I wanted to note that the feature is now in Beta. Please refer to the GCE Networking docs to get started.
Thanks for your feedback… please stay tuned!
Felicity, thank you very much for posting the detailed information on your workaround! I'm sharing this with the networking and support teams for their information, and I'm sure other users will find this helpful too until we can hopefully provide a service like this. Thank you for helping build our user community here on Uservoice!
Thanks, Felicity. I didn't see your comment, but moved it there anyway. I moved an older, less complete idea into this one. Stay tuned, we might have some news here soon, I know the product team has been exploring this due to customer demand.
Please provide more detail, see comments.
Hi - "allocate address" is an AWS command. I think I know what you mean though. Do you mean, "gcloud compute addresses create" and its equivalent API call? Are you asking that the command simply report back the IP address value that was created?
Based on a small number of customer requests, I am moving this from Declined to Under Review so we can accept further votes and feedback on whether some kind of “undelete” would be valuable.
We have received a few inquiries about this, but we do not offer any kind of "undelete" ability. Because some customers ask, I'm moving the state of this to "Under Review" instead of Declined, but we do not have immediate plans to offer this.
Thx, pls see comments for further info.
Typically, modern architectures use one of the many packages available that provides Service Discovery, which is a different thing than DNS. etcd, zookeeper, and consul are all examples you might investigate.
Thanks for the suggestion! This is one that we hear pretty infrequently, usually from users of EC2-Classic networking who have relied on this behavior as a form of service discovery (It is not supported in their newer VPC networking, to my knowledge). We hear this request about once every 6-12 months, and usually from one customer at a time, hence it has not been very high on our backlog. You're the first to mention it in the last 12 months that I'm aware of. :/
I'm not saying we won't consider this, as it has always been on our backlog, but other capabilities like private DNS tend to rank higher. So, if you have friends that want it, have them vote here. :)
Thanks, we’ll make sure this is on our radar.
We try to tackle improvements based on what gets the most votes and will provide the most positive impact for users, not a measure of time. As this item has been getting more positive votes recently and we have completed many other more popular requests, this item is under consideration as I mentioned a couple weeks ago.
Yup, still on there... sorry but no ETA yet. We have a number of usability improvements slated for the coming months, but I can't really speak to where this one lands on the timeline. :/
Announced today at Cloud Next ’17, PostGresQL Cloud SQL is now in Beta! Thanks to everyone for your enthusiasm and patience!
Response from the Cloud SQL PM team:
Thanks for your feedback! A GA date has not yet been set for Postgres support. Large features, such as replication and automatic failover (HA) will be added to the beta period later this year.
Thanks, glad you love it! I've shared your question with the PM for Cloud SQL.
Sorry Chuck, that just means that I changed the forum for this feature request within UserVoice (in case you were trying to figure out where it went). The CloudSQL product team is well aware of the market interest in this, thanks for adding your voice to the chorus! :)
Hang in there!!! The team is definitely aware of how many customers want this. :)
Thanks, I have shifted this request to the Cloud SQL area.
59 votesunder review · 3 comments · Google Cloud Platform » Feature Request · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
Good feedback, Mani. In this case, I'm inclined to keep them separate, because it's likely that the cron-like task queue piece could be available on a different schedule than the full slate of GAE-like services. I don't have dates to announce, but this is on our roadmap.
This is in Beta now.
Thanks, Mani. Sorry for the staleness - our UserVoice forums are a pilot project, and not all product teams are onboarded to actively moderate their forums yet. :)
Thanks for your suggestion, this is definitely something we will consider adding in the future!
Thanks, Gary, we're considering this for a future enhancement.
Have you seen this one?