3 ms·
That is a welcome change. Previously, Route 53 was useless for services that involve hosting user domains (web hosting, for example) because of $1/month charge
by mattront 15y ago
That is a welcome change. Previously, Route 53 was useless for services that involve hosting user domains (web hosting, for example) because of $1/month charge per zone. 1000 low traffic sites would cost $1000 per month just for domain zones. With the new pricing the cost would be $110. That is close or even lower than what competitors are charging.
For those on HN who use Route 53: Would you recommend switching from another provider?
- deefour 15y agoI use route53 for all of my domains (I don't have anywhere near 1000). The $1/mo was worth it to me simply to ease the pain of updating DNS information; I set the name servers once (to point to AWS), and then only have to look to one place (through shell!) to manage DNS. I switch VPS hosts often enough that having shell based tool like route53 to switch DNS records has come in very handy. I also have a habit of switching domain registrars regularly. Having DNS managed by a 3rd party like route53 makes a change like this simple (just updating name servers once the transfer's done). I don't have the time to learn how to manage my own DNS server, so I'm happy to pay $1/mo to make my life a bit easier, and even happier to pay $0.50. I use pcorliss' ruby_route_53 gem[1]. [1] https://github.com/pcorliss/ruby_route_53 https://github.com/pcorliss/ruby_route_53
- robryan 15y agoHaven't had a problem with it. Main reason using it is that you need to to direct a domain to an elb without using a sub domain.