5 ms·
My employer spends a small fortune with AWS, and we make use of many of the services. There's no way our small team could have built our product on any other pl
by vosper 13y ago
My employer spends a small fortune with AWS, and we make use of many of the services. There's no way our small team could have built our product on any other platform.
Still, as my colleague observed, it must be the only business in the world you can spend $1m a year on and get only basic support, with web-only tickets that take hours or days to get a resolved.
- wahnfrieden 13y agoWhy aren't you spending even the $50 support tier if not enough for one of the higher tiers if you're dropping that much in usage costs? I don't understand why anyone expects free support when every little thing in AWS is charged for as a utility.
- vosper 13y agoSorry, I didn't phrase that well - it wasn't really supposed to be a criticism of AWS, but rather (what I thought to be) an interesting observation about how their model differs from most services. To be fair to AWS we don't need support often; we really only have problems when everyone else does (major outages) and we can follow the status of that online, we don't need to call someone to be told "we're working on it". Also our account manager is responsive and pro-active in helping us out, and they've put us on free Business Support trials a couple of times, but because we need it so infrequently there's really no reason for us to fork out for it.
- fbags 13y agoThe paid support tier is also atrocious and close to useless. AWS routinely denies the existence of major flaws for months or years, until they eventually admit it, often by just documenting it instead of fixing it. They're horrifically expensive, and low quality. It's really, really sad that so many startups have been convinced that it's "cheap" when it's almost comically expensive and lousy.
- wahnfrieden 13y agoI don't mean to claim otherwise, but I'd be interested to see what instances led to your observation.
- fbags 13y agoAs a simple example, if you have a moderate number of hosts in a single security group (e.g. 200+ hosts), you can expect to have intermittent communication problems between the nodes. They used to deny this was a problem. here's a source, since you're attacking and disbelieving everybody who doesn't love AWS: http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/news/2240203992/Networking-security-issues-still-irk-large-AWS-shops http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/news/2240203992/N...
- wpietri 13y agoAsking politely phrased questions is not an "attack". I just looked through the last 30 days of his comments, and I don't see anything attack-like there.
- dsl 13y agoIt may or may not be the same issue, but from what I have been able to gather a modification of a security group is basically a "delete, recreate, repopulate" operation. All of our intermittent network issues could be reasonably tied back to SG modifications.
- fbags 13y agoThat's a different issue. This one is instances that are launched into an sg that is then left unmodified. If there are a moderate to large number of instances in that sg, intermittent network connectivity problems will ensue. The issue you mention (where you have to treat sg's as being immutable if you want them to work reliably) is another problem with the sg's.
- beachstartup 13y ago> There's no way our small team could have built our product on any other platform. did you actually try, or are you just rationalizing your enormous AWS spend?