2 ms·

>To get around that they deployed something that customers are wholly responsible for. I doubt they were "getting around" anything. The customer being responsi

>To get around that they deployed something that customers are wholly responsible for. I doubt they were "getting around" anything. The customer being responsible for it is likely the entire point, because the customer who asked for this to be created probably specifically requested that (based on my experience working with AWS SAs). This post is an "AWS Solutions Implementation". This isn't a service like S3/EC2/Lambda/etc created to be an integral part of AWS. A "Solutions Implementation" is basically the output of a customer making a very specific request from AWS Solutions Architects to build something customized (eg, customer doesn't want to use AWS Config but they want to build something from scratch with Lambda and RDS that works the same way), and then the solutions architects decide to share it publicly just in case any other customers find the same niche solution useful. It isn't meant for wide appeal or to be used by everyone. I wouldn't be surprised if the fact that this post is getting decent attention means that AWS will use this solution as a proof of concept for investigating a future managed AWS service where the customer doesn't have to fully manage all of these moving pieces, but this post isn't that.

ctvo 6y ago
> I doubt they were "getting around" anything. The customer being responsible for it is likely the entire point, because the customer who asked for this to be created probably specifically requested that (based on my experience working with AWS SAs). I doubt a customer asked AWS: hey, can I get a graph of how the resources in my accounts all interconnect while maintaining the clusters for the data stores, handling upgrade, security, etc. myself and paying hundreds of dollars a month for the pleasure? The alternative is a customer asked for a way to see how resources were connected and how much it was costing them, and AWS, unable to deliver because of N hurdles (I mentioned security, but no doubt others), delivered this instead. Again: this should be a managed service and free.
- tidepod12 6y ago
  >I doubt a customer asked AWS: hey, can I get a graph of how the resources in my accounts all interconnect while maintaining the clusters for the data stores, handling upgrade, security, etc. myself and paying hundreds of dollars a month for the pleasure? I do consulting for a company that works with a lot of AWS customers and I think you'd be surprised. They don't put it in those exact terms, of course, but I have personal experience with a customer who specifically did want (I think due to their own internal regulatory standards) to maintain their own data stores rather than having an AWS managed service. In my example, it was using AWS Config versus having their own in-house software built on top of Lambda and RDS that did the same thing. Another situation I've seen a lot is that really large companies have a tendency to think they are a super special snowflake with special use cases that no AWS-built service would ever fulfill, and thus they suffer from "not invented here syndrome". I've consulted many companies where I pitched them using an off-the-shelf product or service, but they will insist that it only covers 90% of their use cases and instead they will build their own custom solution using the AWS core services as building blocks, resulting in something similar to what is seen in the OP. For the record, I think it's dumb as hell in most cases and I'm not in any way advocating that this solution in the OP is preferable in any way... but unfortunately I do understand how/why it was probably created.

ctvo 6y ago

> I doubt they were "getting around" anything. The customer being responsible for it is likely the entire point, because the customer who asked for this to be created probably specifically requested that (based on my experience working with AWS SAs). I doubt a customer asked AWS: hey, can I get a graph of how the resources in my accounts all interconnect while maintaining the clusters for the data stores, handling upgrade, security, etc. myself and paying hundreds of dollars a month for the pleasure? The alternative is a customer asked for a way to see how resources were connected and how much it was costing them, and AWS, unable to deliver because of N hurdles (I mentioned security, but no doubt others), delivered this instead. Again: this should be a managed service and free.

tidepod12 6y ago
>I doubt a customer asked AWS: hey, can I get a graph of how the resources in my accounts all interconnect while maintaining the clusters for the data stores, handling upgrade, security, etc. myself and paying hundreds of dollars a month for the pleasure? I do consulting for a company that works with a lot of AWS customers and I think you'd be surprised. They don't put it in those exact terms, of course, but I have personal experience with a customer who specifically did want (I think due to their own internal regulatory standards) to maintain their own data stores rather than having an AWS managed service. In my example, it was using AWS Config versus having their own in-house software built on top of Lambda and RDS that did the same thing. Another situation I've seen a lot is that really large companies have a tendency to think they are a super special snowflake with special use cases that no AWS-built service would ever fulfill, and thus they suffer from "not invented here syndrome". I've consulted many companies where I pitched them using an off-the-shelf product or service, but they will insist that it only covers 90% of their use cases and instead they will build their own custom solution using the AWS core services as building blocks, resulting in something similar to what is seen in the OP. For the record, I think it's dumb as hell in most cases and I'm not in any way advocating that this solution in the OP is preferable in any way... but unfortunately I do understand how/why it was probably created.