3 ms·

I don't like how the title and article reads like a hit piece on Amazon Glacier. It's great at what it is intended for. In addition it seems he still saved mone

I don't like how the title and article reads like a hit piece on Amazon Glacier. It's great at what it is intended for. In addition it seems he still saved money because over 3 years because the $9 a month savings added up to more than the $150 bill for retrieval. I'm surprised that this aspect has not been mentioned here in the comments yet: > I was initiating the same 150 retrievals, over and over again, in the same order. This was the actual problem that resulted in the large cost. At my old job we would get a lot of complaints about overage charges based on usage to our paid API. It wasn't as complicated of pricing as a lot of AWS services, just x req / month and $0.0x per req after that, but every billing cycle someone would complain that we overcharged them. We would then look through our logs to confirm they had indeed made the requests and provide the client with these logs.

ricardobeat 11y ago
> I was initiating the same 150 retrievals, over and over again, in the same order. >> This was the actual problem that resulted in the large cost. That is not true, according to the article itself. The first request for the full 60.8gb already results in a $154.25 bill, regardless of the ones that follow. From that point on he can continue to retrieve 15.2GB/hour for the rest of the month without incurring further costs.
- anonfunction 11y ago
  Thanks for clarifying, I guess I missed that part.
detaro 11y ago
> > I was initiating the same 150 retrievals, over and over again, in the same order. This was the actual problem that resulted in the large cost. Except that it wasn't. The repeated requests were free, because he already set the maximum rate with the first wave of requests. Surprising? Also, it really is not a hit piece. It's an honest report of what he did (and what he did wrong) and that he thinks the docs aren't as clear as they could be.
- anonfunction 11y ago
  Thanks, I guess I glossed over that part of the article but when I got to the end and saw the original quote I assumed the worst. The title alone is pretty inflammatory in my opinion.

ricardobeat 11y ago

> I was initiating the same 150 retrievals, over and over again, in the same order. >> This was the actual problem that resulted in the large cost. That is not true, according to the article itself. The first request for the full 60.8gb already results in a $154.25 bill, regardless of the ones that follow. From that point on he can continue to retrieve 15.2GB/hour for the rest of the month without incurring further costs.

anonfunction 11y ago
Thanks for clarifying, I guess I missed that part.

detaro 11y ago

> > I was initiating the same 150 retrievals, over and over again, in the same order. This was the actual problem that resulted in the large cost. Except that it wasn't. The repeated requests were free, because he already set the maximum rate with the first wave of requests. Surprising? Also, it really is not a hit piece. It's an honest report of what he did (and what he did wrong) and that he thinks the docs aren't as clear as they could be.

anonfunction 11y ago
Thanks, I guess I glossed over that part of the article but when I got to the end and saw the original quote I assumed the worst. The title alone is pretty inflammatory in my opinion.