7 ms·
There are two widely understood downsides of AWS: 1. High egress costs 2. No hard spending limits Both of these were problems for the author. I don't mean to
by electroly 11mo ago
There are two widely understood downsides of AWS:
1. High egress costs
2. No hard spending limits
Both of these were problems for the author. I don't mean to "blame the victim" but the choice of AWS here had a predictable outcome. Static documentation is the easiest content to host and AWS is the most expensive way to host it.
- nijave 11mo agoReally high bandwidth costs in general. I've never worked anywhere large enough to hit them, but I've heard inter-AZ traffic in the same region can become quite expensive once you're big enough
- mystifyingpoi 11mo agoThis is true. There are services that force use of multi-AZ deployment, like their version of Kafka, or basically anything that creates autoscaling groups between AZs (like EKS). Without tight monitoring stuff can get out of hand fast.
- themafia 11mo agoWhat surprised me is you get charged both ways. $0.01/GB egress out of the source AZ and $0.01/GB ingress into the destination AZ. So it's easy to underestimate the billing impact by half.
- electroly 11mo agoWatch out for NAT Gateway, too. An extra $0.045/GB in both directions.
- nijave 11mo agoTrue, those are also a foot gun--especially for AWS services where you'd want to, instead, switch to VPC Endpoints above a trivial amount of traffic (I think the endpoint interface is like $2/mon so has a small cost)