3 ms·
> I then went for a compromise solution asking if we could stitch the small objects together after a period of time so they would be eligible for things like in
by darkwater 5y ago
> I then went for a compromise solution asking if we could stitch the small objects together after a period of time so they would be eligible for things like infrequent access or glacier but, alas, "dev time is expensive you know" so N figure s3 bills continue as far as I know.
This hits home so hard that it hurts. In my case is not S3 but compute bills but the core concept is the same.
- WrtCdEvrydy 5y agoBecause the bill isn't a "dev problem". Once you move those bills to "devops", it becomes an infrastructure problem.
- zrail 5y agoA big chunk of responsibility for teams doing cloud devops is cost attribution. Cloud costs are incurred by services and those services are owned by teams. Those teams should be billed for their costs and encouraged (via spiffs or the perf process if necessary) to manage them. Devops' job is to build the tooling that allows that to happen.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ac2022 5y agoIt is also because devops is shoved down devs throats while claiming that it is easier and better. So now many of developers don’t want to spend time rewriting their code for something that is supposed to reduce their workload not increase it.
- darkwater 5y agoYeah, I totally agree, and I do this from an Ops perspective. 6-7 years ago I was really fearing my job would disappear because "everything will be automated in the cloud and owned by developers who write business code". Turns out it just transformed a bit but there is still plenty of not-strictly-related-to-business code to be written and maintained that developers mainly don't care about.