7 ms·

The scariest thing to me about AWS is that I might accidentally bankrupt myself while I learn to use it. I've seen horror stories on HN before. Articles title

by tieTYT 12y ago

The scariest thing to me about AWS is that I might accidentally bankrupt myself while I learn to use it. I've seen horror stories on HN before. Articles titled "How I spent $32k with AWS, a for loop, and a simple typo" or something like that. Normally when I learn something new, I learn by tinkering and breaking stuff. I don't feel comfortable doing that with AWS. I'm hoping people will tell me I'm way off base because this fear has stopped me from getting the ball rolling.

withdavidli 12y ago
Here's a story for reference: http://www.devfactor.net/2014/12/30/2375-amazon-mistake/ http://www.devfactor.net/2014/12/30/2375-amazon-mistake/ More about bots scanning github for api keys, that's pretty scary in itself because I know pushing keys by accident happens a lot.
- juliangregorian 12y ago
  Yeah, Amazon's key model is a pretty big weak point, both Google Cloud and Azure handle it better. It would be safer to use different sets of keys, like one to create new machines, and app-specific keys that can update only, but that's more work and more headache to manage. Google Cloud just makes me SSH tunnel, which I like.
skuhn 12y ago
AWS does have a way to warn you when your bill crosses a certain threshold: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/awsaccountbilling/latest/aboutv2/create-billing-alarm.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/awsaccountbilling/latest/aboutv2/...
- oafitupa 12y ago
  All the warnings in the world can't replace a configurable $ limit. We don't want to have to rely on them "forgiving" us if we make a mistake.
  - riffraff 12y ago
    the alternative to a warning is: when your app becomes popular they shut it down, it's arguable that is not what you want either.
    - oafitupa 12y ago
      How do you know it's not what I want? Why do you think they should make such a decision for me?
      - nullrouted 12y ago
        You are creating one of those arguments that really add no value. Really, if your app is succeeding you might want it to shut it down? No you are just creating another strawman argument because you see a service not offering one feature you MIGHT want. Seriously, get over yourself.
        mobiplayer 12y ago
        It's not that. There are two approaches here: 1) You're just playing: You want a limit. 2) You're serious about it: You want a warning. Easy enough to understand I hope.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        santacluster 12y ago
        And AWS is the only service that supports both, and any finegrained solution in between, by triggering programmatically actionable alarms. You just have to set it up, and if you cannot be bothered, AWS isn't the service for you. If you don't want to do your own cooking, fine, but don't whine about the grocery store not providing you with your own personal chef. oafitupa is just whining for the sake of whining.
        tomjen3 12y ago
- tieTYT 12y ago
  That's great, thanks for the info. I wish most getting started guides would set this up first/early.
eropple 12y ago
AWS is extremely understanding about those sorts of overruns, if you don't make a habit of it.
themartorana 12y ago
I run a million-dollar business on it for $4500/m, give or take. It's not Webfaction (who I love and highly recommend) or Linode. It's virtualized data-center territory that can support some massive stacks. They give you enough rope to hang yourself. I'm ok with that, because it works brilliantly when you have the time to put in to it. (They also almost always help out or completely forgive someone that accidentally ran up a massive bill in a short period of time.) Without AWS, my company wouldn't exist - I could never have initially afforded dedicated hosting or collocation. AWS changed the game. You can argue they're not the cheapest or even the best anymore, but it works this way because of Amazon. Edit: what's with the down-votes?
- oafitupa 12y ago
  What's your point? What you said changes nothing for people like tieTYT and me.
  - themartorana 12y ago
    If you want to play with VPS servers, use DO. If you want to virtualize a data-center or series of globally-connected data centers with racks of servers, use AWS. So maybe AWS isn't the right solution for you. You say in another comment that warnings about billing overages aren't enough. AWS can't hold your hand and provide Netflix-capable services at the same time. Amazon chose the latter. I would recommend you not choose AWS until you have the time to dedicate to it.
    - oafitupa 12y ago
      How is being able to set up a $ limit "holding my hand"? You guys are defending something that is indefensible. I don't want to "play" with VPS servers, I want to work knowing that I won't go bankrupt just because I'm using at the same time a service that won't let me set up a limit, and a pull payment system (ie. credit cards, as opposed to push systems like Bitcoin).
      - politician 12y ago
mikelbring 12y ago
Yep I had a $800 bill once because of this.
balls187 12y ago
Amazon has been forgiving for the occasional spike in billing. If you understand AWS pricing, and don't publish your AWS keys, you should be good to go.
mdnormy 12y ago
A friend amasses $200 bill overnight due to bad looping when experimenting with Lambda. This is all too common of a story now. Amazon should do something other than goodwill refund.
richbradshaw 12y ago
This isn't true at all - the main issue that most of those articles have faced is either: * Committing root credentials to a public git account (equivalent to your root account on every machine + ability to purchase new servers…) * Spinning up instances during free period, then forgetting and getting billed the $10/month on them a year later * Not reading the costs, and trying to replicate what you might normally purchase in AWS and being surprised at the cost, rather than buying 101% of capacity required. I'm using it to host a mid sized website with an intranet type app with servers spanned across multiple data centres, built in redundancy etc for around $100/month after reserved instance one off payments. It's crazy cheap and in my view, incredibly powerful even for smaller businesses.
- jon-wood 12y ago
  Given the size of reserved instance pre-payments it seems a bit disingenuous to claim you're paying around $100/month. Reserved instances are definitely the way to go if you have a steady state load that warrants them, but you do have to look at that pre-payment as part of your monthly costs to get a proper view of what's being paid.
EwanToo 12y ago
You can really easily setup alarms on cost, start with a $50 alarm, $100, $200, etc and you'll get notified by email when you've spent that much.
runamok 12y ago
You can easily setup alerts and such when you go over a certain cost run-rate. Of course you need to know how to do that. http://docs.aws.amazon.com/awsaccountbilling/latest/aboutv2/monitor-charges.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/awsaccountbilling/latest/aboutv2/...

by tieTYT 12y ago

withdavidli 12y ago

Here's a story for reference: http://www.devfactor.net/2014/12/30/2375-amazon-mistake/ http://www.devfactor.net/2014/12/30/2375-amazon-mistake/ More about bots scanning github for api keys, that's pretty scary in itself because I know pushing keys by accident happens a lot.

juliangregorian 12y ago
Yeah, Amazon's key model is a pretty big weak point, both Google Cloud and Azure handle it better. It would be safer to use different sets of keys, like one to create new machines, and app-specific keys that can update only, but that's more work and more headache to manage. Google Cloud just makes me SSH tunnel, which I like.

skuhn 12y ago

AWS does have a way to warn you when your bill crosses a certain threshold: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/awsaccountbilling/latest/aboutv2/create-billing-alarm.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/awsaccountbilling/latest/aboutv2/...

oafitupa 12y ago
All the warnings in the world can't replace a configurable $ limit. We don't want to have to rely on them "forgiving" us if we make a mistake.
- riffraff 12y ago
  the alternative to a warning is: when your app becomes popular they shut it down, it's arguable that is not what you want either.
  - oafitupa 12y ago
    How do you know it's not what I want? Why do you think they should make such a decision for me?
    - nullrouted 12y ago
      You are creating one of those arguments that really add no value. Really, if your app is succeeding you might want it to shut it down? No you are just creating another strawman argument because you see a service not offering one feature you MIGHT want. Seriously, get over yourself.
      - mobiplayer 12y ago
        It's not that. There are two approaches here: 1) You're just playing: You want a limit. 2) You're serious about it: You want a warning. Easy enough to understand I hope.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        santacluster 12y ago
        And AWS is the only service that supports both, and any finegrained solution in between, by triggering programmatically actionable alarms. You just have to set it up, and if you cannot be bothered, AWS isn't the service for you. If you don't want to do your own cooking, fine, but don't whine about the grocery store not providing you with your own personal chef. oafitupa is just whining for the sake of whining.
      - tomjen3 12y ago
tieTYT 12y ago
That's great, thanks for the info. I wish most getting started guides would set this up first/early.

eropple 12y ago

AWS is extremely understanding about those sorts of overruns, if you don't make a habit of it.

themartorana 12y ago

I run a million-dollar business on it for $4500/m, give or take. It's not Webfaction (who I love and highly recommend) or Linode. It's virtualized data-center territory that can support some massive stacks. They give you enough rope to hang yourself. I'm ok with that, because it works brilliantly when you have the time to put in to it. (They also almost always help out or completely forgive someone that accidentally ran up a massive bill in a short period of time.) Without AWS, my company wouldn't exist - I could never have initially afforded dedicated hosting or collocation. AWS changed the game. You can argue they're not the cheapest or even the best anymore, but it works this way because of Amazon. Edit: what's with the down-votes?

oafitupa 12y ago
What's your point? What you said changes nothing for people like tieTYT and me.
- themartorana 12y ago
  If you want to play with VPS servers, use DO. If you want to virtualize a data-center or series of globally-connected data centers with racks of servers, use AWS. So maybe AWS isn't the right solution for you. You say in another comment that warnings about billing overages aren't enough. AWS can't hold your hand and provide Netflix-capable services at the same time. Amazon chose the latter. I would recommend you not choose AWS until you have the time to dedicate to it.
  - oafitupa 12y ago
    How is being able to set up a $ limit "holding my hand"? You guys are defending something that is indefensible. I don't want to "play" with VPS servers, I want to work knowing that I won't go bankrupt just because I'm using at the same time a service that won't let me set up a limit, and a pull payment system (ie. credit cards, as opposed to push systems like Bitcoin).
    - politician 12y ago

mikelbring 12y ago

Yep I had a $800 bill once because of this.

balls187 12y ago

Amazon has been forgiving for the occasional spike in billing. If you understand AWS pricing, and don't publish your AWS keys, you should be good to go.

mdnormy 12y ago

A friend amasses $200 bill overnight due to bad looping when experimenting with Lambda. This is all too common of a story now. Amazon should do something other than goodwill refund.

richbradshaw 12y ago

This isn't true at all - the main issue that most of those articles have faced is either: * Committing root credentials to a public git account (equivalent to your root account on every machine + ability to purchase new servers…) * Spinning up instances during free period, then forgetting and getting billed the $10/month on them a year later * Not reading the costs, and trying to replicate what you might normally purchase in AWS and being surprised at the cost, rather than buying 101% of capacity required. I'm using it to host a mid sized website with an intranet type app with servers spanned across multiple data centres, built in redundancy etc for around $100/month after reserved instance one off payments. It's crazy cheap and in my view, incredibly powerful even for smaller businesses.

jon-wood 12y ago
Given the size of reserved instance pre-payments it seems a bit disingenuous to claim you're paying around $100/month. Reserved instances are definitely the way to go if you have a steady state load that warrants them, but you do have to look at that pre-payment as part of your monthly costs to get a proper view of what's being paid.

EwanToo 12y ago

You can really easily setup alarms on cost, start with a $50 alarm, $100, $200, etc and you'll get notified by email when you've spent that much.

runamok 12y ago

You can easily setup alerts and such when you go over a certain cost run-rate. Of course you need to know how to do that. http://docs.aws.amazon.com/awsaccountbilling/latest/aboutv2/monitor-charges.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/awsaccountbilling/latest/aboutv2/...