4 ms·

It's "serverless" in the sense that if the developer had provisioned a "server" then the max incursion of cost would equal the cost of that server, no more no l

by OzzyB 9y ago

It's "serverless" in the sense that if the developer had provisioned a "server" then the max incursion of cost would equal the cost of that server, no more no less. So yeah, let's blame the developer, but let's not play like mistakes don't happen and they're not costly in the "serverless" world.

jzawodn 9y ago
LOL WAT? How is it "serverless" if you're provisioning a server?
- foobarchu 9y ago
  He's saying that the problem is with "serverless architecture", because the problem could not possibly have happened without the use of a serverless architecture (e.g. provisioning a server). The problem is exclusive to serverless.
  - Terretta 9y ago
    That’s what he’s saying but that’s not correct.
  - skewart 9y ago
    > The problem is exclusive to serverless. That's simply not true. You can accidentally run up huge bills with EC2 instances too. One typo in your CloudFormation templates could spin up a ton of reserved p2.16xlarge's. Of course, if you consider EC2, and other AWS services, to be "serverless" too - you're not physically managing your own racks after all - then, yeah, fair enough, it is a problem exclusive to these "serverless" IaaS/PaaS providers.
Terretta 9y ago
Use EC2, set an auto scaling threshold on CPU utilization, do something dumb, you’ll find you ran “a server” x n. It’s easy to burn tens or hundreds of thousands ‘accidentally’ on “server”, easier than on serverless. If you’re spending real money, you should have an account team. Talk to them if such a problem happens.
- vacri 9y ago
  An autoscaling group has a max spend of '"a server" x n', where you set what n is. Autoscaling groups don't keep adding servers forever.
- bmelton 9y ago
  > If you’re spending real money, you should have an account team. Talk to them if such a problem happens The colloquialism for "real money", at least to me, is "a substantial sum". If that's what you intended, wouldn't it make sense that you wouldn't have an account team if the only time you spent real money was by accident?

by OzzyB 9y ago

jzawodn 9y ago

LOL WAT? How is it "serverless" if you're provisioning a server?

foobarchu 9y ago
He's saying that the problem is with "serverless architecture", because the problem could not possibly have happened without the use of a serverless architecture (e.g. provisioning a server). The problem is exclusive to serverless.
- Terretta 9y ago
  That’s what he’s saying but that’s not correct.
- skewart 9y ago
  > The problem is exclusive to serverless. That's simply not true. You can accidentally run up huge bills with EC2 instances too. One typo in your CloudFormation templates could spin up a ton of reserved p2.16xlarge's. Of course, if you consider EC2, and other AWS services, to be "serverless" too - you're not physically managing your own racks after all - then, yeah, fair enough, it is a problem exclusive to these "serverless" IaaS/PaaS providers.

Terretta 9y ago

Use EC2, set an auto scaling threshold on CPU utilization, do something dumb, you’ll find you ran “a server” x n. It’s easy to burn tens or hundreds of thousands ‘accidentally’ on “server”, easier than on serverless. If you’re spending real money, you should have an account team. Talk to them if such a problem happens.

vacri 9y ago
An autoscaling group has a max spend of '"a server" x n', where you set what n is. Autoscaling groups don't keep adding servers forever.
bmelton 9y ago
> If you’re spending real money, you should have an account team. Talk to them if such a problem happens The colloquialism for "real money", at least to me, is "a substantial sum". If that's what you intended, wouldn't it make sense that you wouldn't have an account team if the only time you spent real money was by accident?