4 ms·

At least AWS sort of provides tooling to approximate this. I have some alerts setup in CloudWatch for anomalous Network Out, estimated charges exceeding a thres

by Jach 3y ago

At least AWS sort of provides tooling to approximate this. I have some alerts setup in CloudWatch for anomalous Network Out, estimated charges exceeding a threshold, and a raw Network Out limit that if exceeded shuts instances down. Overtime, bandwidth costs have gone down for AWS. What's finally causing me to think about jumping ship (surprised OP didn't mention OVH's unmetered stuff) is their upcoming pricing per month for IPv4 addresses. The alternative is proxying through CloudFlare, which I don't particularly want to do.

lxgr 3y ago
It's still absurd having to hand-craft that type of protection against racking up enormous bills, especially with cloud providers now actively promoting their various "free" tiers to hobbyists. It reminds me of EU roaming before the regulatory cap, when a single video call close to the border could cost you thousands of Euros.
- Intralexical 3y ago
  The thing is that GCP used to have this, but then got rid of it a couple years ago. So is there really demand for it in most of their customers?
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
    Google killing a product cannot be used to assess popularity. Especially if the product’s existence would potentially hurt revenue.
    - Intralexical 3y ago
      It can certainly raise questions about popularity, however, as long as you also adequately consider their tendency for rent-seeking, monopolistic behavior, etc. In this specific case it's more that I'm having a hard time picturing serious "cloud"-based web companies that decide "Oh yeah sure we'll just shut our site down if we get too many visitors". That would mean this feature is useful primarily for hobbyists, which are more likely to be put off by (and react like they do to roaming phone charges to) uncapped costs (and also not a reliable source of revenue), weakening the revenue argument for removing the feature.
marcosdumay 3y ago
Yeah, again "sorta" "approximates". AWS is famous for making those alerts hard to set and error-prone. Honestly, I don't understand why people (instead of large companies) use them at all.

by Jach 3y ago

lxgr 3y ago

It's still absurd having to hand-craft that type of protection against racking up enormous bills, especially with cloud providers now actively promoting their various "free" tiers to hobbyists. It reminds me of EU roaming before the regulatory cap, when a single video call close to the border could cost you thousands of Euros.

Intralexical 3y ago
The thing is that GCP used to have this, but then got rid of it a couple years ago. So is there really demand for it in most of their customers?
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
  Google killing a product cannot be used to assess popularity. Especially if the product’s existence would potentially hurt revenue.
  - Intralexical 3y ago
    It can certainly raise questions about popularity, however, as long as you also adequately consider their tendency for rent-seeking, monopolistic behavior, etc. In this specific case it's more that I'm having a hard time picturing serious "cloud"-based web companies that decide "Oh yeah sure we'll just shut our site down if we get too many visitors". That would mean this feature is useful primarily for hobbyists, which are more likely to be put off by (and react like they do to roaming phone charges to) uncapped costs (and also not a reliable source of revenue), weakening the revenue argument for removing the feature.

marcosdumay 3y ago

Yeah, again "sorta" "approximates". AWS is famous for making those alerts hard to set and error-prone. Honestly, I don't understand why people (instead of large companies) use them at all.