5 ms·

Imo these tiny quotas are specifically put in bc a lot of people (especially on this site) always complain how they managed to rack a huge bill by accident. You

Imo these tiny quotas are specifically put in bc a lot of people (especially on this site) always complain how they managed to rack a huge bill by accident. You can’t have it both ways

iam-TJ 4y ago
Seems like it'd be simple to deal with that: Allow people to pre-pay (deposit) an amount of their choice and set an account flag "Do NOT exceed account balance".
- dilyevsky 4y ago
  You will have to do transactional billing at cloud scale which isn’t really feasible
richwater 4y ago
I hate this excuse. AWS, GCP etc are not designed for children. They are designed for serious, enterprise-level workloads. People need to do their due diligence.
- ssmw 4y ago
  You are going to need a serious, enterprise billing account attached to it to have quotas automatically increased.
- dilyevsky 4y ago
  They wouldn’t call it clown compute if it was serious
pannSun 4y ago
You can't have what both ways, specifically? User-facing spending and capacity limits that are hard to accidentally set too high, without also unilaterally and without warning terminating compute nodes for opaque, alleged ToS violations when their compute actually gets used?
fdgsdfogijq 4y ago
This isnt why. Its because these services cant scale to everyone having unlimited quotas
- dilyevsky 4y ago
  If you have quota that doesn’t prevent stock out at all which cloud support will be happy to tell you when you have tons of quota but can’t spin up any more VMs in a region
  - kevincox 4y ago
    No, but it provides some control. They will stock out if everyone suddenly uses their entire quota (they aren't reservations) but by limiting the quotas that they issue they can reduce the impact of single actors or large swings of smaller actors on availability. Basically it improves the predictability of resource usages by limiting outlier spikes.
modeless 4y ago
Well maybe if they implemented reasonable ways to cap your bill then they wouldn't need have to have all these arbitrary hidden limits. It's ridiculously difficult bordering on impossible to make sure that a usage spike or bug won't cause an infinitely large bill, on any service they offer. App Engine used to be the exception with an actual spending limit, but (of course) they deprecated and removed it.
- mirker 4y ago
  The latency to query cost is on the order of hours on user side so the service would be off the limit by the cost rate * cost latency. That’s my guess for why it’s not a feature.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
    I doubt there is a fundamental limit which says the reporting needs to be that slow. I suspect that some metrics are slower to query than others, but it would go a long way if you could get near instantaneous billing wherever possible. Even better if you could have a hard shut off if cpu/disk/network spend goes over x limit. I choose to believe: it is easy money if people cannot easily avoid accidental mega bills.
    - mirker 4y ago
      See my other reply. The reason I believe it’s architected this way is to have a good tradeoff between timeliness and overhead cost. Full correctness at global scale would involve serializing all billable events through a series of global transactions, which would bring performance to a crawl (e.g., 10ms just to synchronize the metric).
      - Terretta 4y ago
        This is absolutely right, and I among others have asked AWS to especially please not put any checks on performance "inline" just to do capacity limits. We are happy with the present tradeoffs. The needs of those wanting to compute should absolutely outweigh the needs of those wanting to not compute.
wkdneidbwf 4y ago
no way. it’s because they can’t scale to unknown demand.
- dilyevsky 4y ago
  Having quota does not guarantee you get the resources. Commit is supposed to (but not really)
mirker 4y ago
The system approves requests by how trustworthy you are. It does this so: 1. You can’t denial of service the cloud or something else 2. Launder money through mining cryptocurrency 3. Take popular instances away from high profit customers
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Imo these tiny quotas are specifically put in bc a lot of people (especially on this site) always complain how they managed to rack a huge bill by accident. You can’t have it both ways

iam-TJ 4y ago

Seems like it'd be simple to deal with that: Allow people to pre-pay (deposit) an amount of their choice and set an account flag "Do NOT exceed account balance".

dilyevsky 4y ago
You will have to do transactional billing at cloud scale which isn’t really feasible

richwater 4y ago

I hate this excuse. AWS, GCP etc are not designed for children. They are designed for serious, enterprise-level workloads. People need to do their due diligence.

ssmw 4y ago
You are going to need a serious, enterprise billing account attached to it to have quotas automatically increased.
dilyevsky 4y ago
They wouldn’t call it clown compute if it was serious

pannSun 4y ago

You can't have what both ways, specifically? User-facing spending and capacity limits that are hard to accidentally set too high, without also unilaterally and without warning terminating compute nodes for opaque, alleged ToS violations when their compute actually gets used?

fdgsdfogijq 4y ago

This isnt why. Its because these services cant scale to everyone having unlimited quotas

dilyevsky 4y ago
If you have quota that doesn’t prevent stock out at all which cloud support will be happy to tell you when you have tons of quota but can’t spin up any more VMs in a region
- kevincox 4y ago
  No, but it provides some control. They will stock out if everyone suddenly uses their entire quota (they aren't reservations) but by limiting the quotas that they issue they can reduce the impact of single actors or large swings of smaller actors on availability. Basically it improves the predictability of resource usages by limiting outlier spikes.

modeless 4y ago

Well maybe if they implemented reasonable ways to cap your bill then they wouldn't need have to have all these arbitrary hidden limits. It's ridiculously difficult bordering on impossible to make sure that a usage spike or bug won't cause an infinitely large bill, on any service they offer. App Engine used to be the exception with an actual spending limit, but (of course) they deprecated and removed it.

mirker 4y ago
The latency to query cost is on the order of hours on user side so the service would be off the limit by the cost rate * cost latency. That’s my guess for why it’s not a feature.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
  I doubt there is a fundamental limit which says the reporting needs to be that slow. I suspect that some metrics are slower to query than others, but it would go a long way if you could get near instantaneous billing wherever possible. Even better if you could have a hard shut off if cpu/disk/network spend goes over x limit. I choose to believe: it is easy money if people cannot easily avoid accidental mega bills.
  - mirker 4y ago
    See my other reply. The reason I believe it’s architected this way is to have a good tradeoff between timeliness and overhead cost. Full correctness at global scale would involve serializing all billable events through a series of global transactions, which would bring performance to a crawl (e.g., 10ms just to synchronize the metric).
    - Terretta 4y ago
      This is absolutely right, and I among others have asked AWS to especially please not put any checks on performance "inline" just to do capacity limits. We are happy with the present tradeoffs. The needs of those wanting to compute should absolutely outweigh the needs of those wanting to not compute.

wkdneidbwf 4y ago

no way. it’s because they can’t scale to unknown demand.

dilyevsky 4y ago
Having quota does not guarantee you get the resources. Commit is supposed to (but not really)

mirker 4y ago

The system approves requests by how trustworthy you are. It does this so: 1. You can’t denial of service the cloud or something else 2. Launder money through mining cryptocurrency 3. Take popular instances away from high profit customers

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]