4 ms·

You can run your own gateway instance(s) for a lot cheaper than the nat gateway service. There are definitely some tradeoffs, but if $36/mo is an issue, they ca

You can run your own gateway instance(s) for a lot cheaper than the nat gateway service. There are definitely some tradeoffs, but if $36/mo is an issue, they can be worthwhile: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/VPC_NAT_Instance.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/VPC_NAT_Ins...

scarface74 7y ago
This is not meant to be a criticism of AWS, I’m an AWS true believer, but the main purpose of going to AWS is to make the “undifferentiated heavy lifting” someone else’s problem not to save money. Going to AWS to save money on resources is about like going to the Apple Store to buy a cheap laptop.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- reilly3000 7y ago
  I’m not against AWS or $36/mo. It just is kinda a drag when the promise of serverless is pay per user and scaling to zero. You could get a nice EC2 t3.medium and do a lot more RPS for the cost of that NAT and Lambda invocations.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    If you don’t care about cold starts, there is always Aurora Serverless with the Data API. I don’t believe it requires either a NAT or for the lambda to be attached to your VPC.