5 ms·
Because it works? I was doing some testing of Serververless (the framework) for a personal project. I wanted to do it in Google functions + Database, but even
by xtracto 7y ago
Because it works?
I was doing some testing of Serververless (the framework) for a personal project. I wanted to do it in Google functions + Database, but even for the basic out of the examples GCS wouldnt work; I spent 3 hours fiddling around. I moved on to AWS lambda + Dynamo and was done in 1 hour.
Also AWS support is simply amazing. Considering Google history of bad support, I wouldnt consider it for anything serious.
- paulddraper 7y ago> Also AWS support is simply amazing. A few weeks ago, I had a two-node Elasticsearch cluster (evidently my mistake...though IDK why AWS can operate high availability two-node transaction RDS clusters no problem but not ES). One node went down, only manual intervention by AWS support could fix it, automatic backups were completely inaccessible (since they rely on the cluster being up? ... WTF), and it took many hours for support to reset the cluster. I eventually just "screw it," and spent a couple rebuilding the cluster from scratch.
- goatherders 7y agoThis. AWS support is wildly expensive. I actually encourage most companies to find a smaller partner with strong infrastructure for this exact reason.
- andrew_wc_brown 7y agoAWS Business Support is only $100 / USD per month where you can call in 24/7 and be connected with a Cloud Support Engineer within 5-15 mins. If you don't like the engineer, hang up call again and get someone different. That's incredibly in-expensive, saves me hours or hiring more devs. You can get this Business Support for free a year if you join StartupSchool and get 3K USD credits with the business support. If you can't afford it, maybe you are just hobbying around but AWS offers lots of ways to support you until you have a substainable revenue.
- goatherders 7y agoI think you may not appreciate how much $100 a month is for many people around the globe.
- ghaff 7y agoThat may be. But, then, you're definitely in the category of your time isn't really worth anything and screwing around for a few days doing DIY on software/hardware/etc. is a better solution than paying someone to do something for you. That's fine but you're really describing paid support generally.
- Swizec 7y agoThis right here I always hear people on the internet talking about AWS being crazy expensive, but from SFBA it looks really damn cheap. Would I rather give $thousands to AWS or $hundredthousands to an internal specialist who’s likely gonna say my company is too small and boring to keep them interested anyway? AWS wind that math every day. And that’s the market they target. Why wouldnt they?
- ghaff 7y agoPart of it is that people see the AWS or support bill or consultant bill or whatever. But they don't really see the cost of DIY whether initial cost or ongoing support. The cost of build (on many dimensions) vs. buy is often underestimated. That's not to say you should never build--no, you shouldn't use AWS for everything--but it's important to understand the real costs.
- goatherders 7y agoAWS is extremely expensive once you get to any meaningful size. If you save on infrastructure you pay for it on enterprise support, engineers or consultants and/or bandwidth. I LIKE AWS. I think it can be a great choice for many companies and use-cases. But the idea that AWS is firmly everyone, that it's less expensive for everyone when you factor in the TCO, simply isnt correct.
- andrew_wc_brown 7y agoAWS has over 175+ services and is continually improving. I would say more new services on launch don't live up to the promise but quarter after quarter you see dramatic improvement, some services it's year after year. What makes AWS so valuable is not individual services but the fact you can string them together which outweighs the feature set of a single service. Github is amazing for developer happiness but CodeCommit is secure and seamlessly integrates with so many AWS Services I Can live without all the bells and whisltes of Github.
- abofh 7y agoI've never had aws hand over anything under a tenuous legal argument. Github bent over and found the first reason they could. I'll pay my money to AWS first, because it doesn't compromise my business.
- paulddraper 7y agoElasticsearch is on the older side of those 175, since it launched in 2015. [1] [1] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-amazon-elasticsearch-service/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-amazon-elasticsearch-se...
- whatsmyusername 7y agoElasticsearch is a bad example. Their elasticsearch offering has always been wack. There's a tier of services at AWS: s3/ec2/ecs/rds/elasticache - Flagships, will almost always work except in weird edge cases. Everyone uses these. Niche Stuff - If you need it you'll know. It'll generally at least be an 80% tool (think athena/firehose/aws waf/etc). Stuff with shitty pricing - Stuff they obviously only built for feature parity with GCP/Microsoft (think EKS/Managed SFTP/Cloud Active Directory) Broken shit you use once, it screws you, and you never use it again - Usually it's either because the underlying open source tool is built in a fashion that isn't appropriate for a shared services environment or it's because someone at AWS has 'opinions' (think Elasticsearch/Cloudformation)
- rpedela 7y agoIt is not recommended to run two node ES clusters. The AWS service shouldn't allow that configuration.
- paulddraper 7y agoYeah, that was my mistake.
- theterriblestid 7y agoI once used a much larger EC2 than I needed and got billed a few hundred. After explaining the situation they refunded all of it.