3 ms·
With AWS, your costs are unpredictable. You could be spammed or some search bots decide to go haywire and you will incur hundreds of dollars. The second thing
by nabaraz 6y ago
With AWS, your costs are unpredictable. You could be spammed or some search bots decide to go haywire and you will incur hundreds of dollars.
The second thing is AWS is very expensive for what it does.
Do you need to add DNS records? There is Route 53 which costs extra.
Do you need emails? There is AWS Simple Email which costs extra.
Do you need logs? The storage cost (although little) is added to your bill.
Do you need databases? Do you need support?
All I am saying is that shared hosting should be first considered for static websites.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chiefalchemist 6y agoYes and no. Flip it around. AWS let's you not pay for things you don't need. Then, if there's a biz requirement for something else, you make that _investment_. Of course there are alternatives. But shared hosting is a roll of the dice. For a hobby project or POC? Sure, start with shared. But if you're certain shared is not a semi-longer term option don't wasteyour time. Shared is cheap for a reason. Saving a couple dollars will dry up quickly in downtime and headache time.
- gonzo41 6y agoAll of those things cost money and effort to maintain. Im not a super AWS fanboy but each IaaS component is a feature that's easy-ish to do on your own with a server and some software. When you go server less or cloud native you have to really think about the bits of tech that bring real value. If you look at the free tier limits, and monthly costs. Putting a simple rest app behind API gateway with a few buckets and a little lambda gives you a whole lot of bang for very little cost. If you're a person in a region and your website is going to get bursty use by people in your region then it's a pretty cheap deal. Monthly costs < 1 coffee for a blog or some non trivial page.
- simlevesque 6y agoAny website can be attacked by a bot. With shared hosting everything will fail. With AWS you will pay more. It's a tradeoff. I must add that AWS makes it easy to use WAF (web application firewall) to protect you from this. Route53 cost is ridicule. Not an issue at all.
- Discombulator 6y agoWhat you are considering a disadvantage is seen as a strength by others (myself included): you pay only for what you use. No cross-subsidization to services you don’t need!