3 ms·
I think this is way, way too pessimistic and unfair. When they say zero, it's like a food item that says zero calories. It might have up to five calories while
by gjsman-1000 2y ago
I think this is way, way too pessimistic and unfair. When they say zero, it's like a food item that says zero calories. It might have up to five calories while still saying zero, but that's very different than three hundred.
Managing a SQL Database at scale is more like four thousand calories daily, if I continue stretching this analogy. :)
- benterix 2y agoI don't disagree about the service itself having relatively few calories (I'd argue it's far more then 5, but that's a minor point). The reality is that you need a ton of other things to have it running properly - from a properly created and maintained AWS account, to proper IAM roles with correct permissions, to correct deployment/modification setup and other resources as a database rarely exists in a vacuum. And because Amazon decided not to implement spending cap, if you don't have the right competences, you are at risk losing money - and this is especially true for serverless services. I still remember the folks who set the same bucket for lambda notifications look with panic as their bill increases dramatically as they watch it growing, not knowing how to stop the whole process.[0] [0] They disabled the trap a few weeks ago, finally: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2024/10/aws-lambda-detects-stops-recursive-loops-lambda-s3/ https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2024/10/aws-lambd...