4 ms·
I am completely dumbfounded by this reply. You're suggesting we engineer something on S3 and aws-cli, while complaining about engineering something ourselves w
by baz00 3y ago
I am completely dumbfounded by this reply.
You're suggesting we engineer something on S3 and aws-cli, while complaining about engineering something ourselves when AWS offers a perfectly good queue service that requires no engineering?
Uff. I'm going to buy a hut in the woods and live in it.
- slt2021 3y agoI used s3 just as an example of a service with very good track record of availability for a very low cost - and perfectly reliable available service can be created with bash scripts, aws-cli and free-tier AWS account. perfectly fine with using SQS, just it will have worse availability guarantees than S3 - people should understand tradeoffs
- Brian_K_White 3y agoI don't know but I think they might be suggesting that the answer to "don't need a huge complex system" is not "use someone else's huge complex system".
- slt2021 3y agomy understanding is that you should not roll your own expensive complex huge system, just use AWS S3 which provides eleven nines of availability at $22/tb/mo. It is really hard to beat the cost/benefit ratio of S3. a lot of mediocre engineers cannot swallow a pill that all their expensive work with hundreds of hours of overengineering could be replaced by a couple of AWS managed serverless services stitched together with a few mouse clicks or a single .yml file
- SanderNL 3y agoWhy does AWS even enter the conversation?
- catchnear4321 3y agosame reason any vendor enters the conversation. the argument that you can get more value out of the vendor than you would have out of a full time employee, and often for less money. sometimes it really does make sense just to pay someone else to solve the problem. not always, but not never.