3 ms·
There are a bunch of microcharges like this that pop up, but reading your thread are you sure AWS is right for your application? You essentially can't afford it
by iheartpotatoes 8y ago
There are a bunch of microcharges like this that pop up, but reading your thread are you sure AWS is right for your application? You essentially can't afford it and want a free tier and near-free access? That seems a bit unrealistic. Maybe lambda isn't the right solution?
- sudhirj 8y agoLambda isn't the problem here, the private network (subnet) is. Basically default to public subnet with security groups configured for your incoming connections. If you really want / need the airgapping that private subnets provide, you'd better be willing to pay for them, and that makes sense to me personally - outside of PCI DSS or HIPAA compliance (or similar) I don't see any reason to use private subnets. That won't apply on a personal project.
- sudhirj 8y agoThere's another gotcha, though is that Lambdas seem to default to inside the VPC by default, which triggers the NAT Gateway cost if you want to do anything useful with them. You'll need to explicitly remember to host the Lambdas outside the VPC.
- manishsharan 8y agoYou may consider using NAT instance of EC2. A micro instance which can also serve as your bastion host. Or if you are a true extreme penny pincher -- have your lamba function invoke aws api to set up a NAT Gateway and update the subnet route, then execute your business function and then clean up the NAT.
- sudhirj 8y agoHuh? I can’t make out if this is sarcasm... you suggesting opening the firewall from the inside for each request, finishing the request and then closing the firewall? For starters, what would happen if request 1 closed the firewall while request 2 was still working?
- iheartpotatoes 8y agoYeah, exactly!