Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 155 posts

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#91

Post by jitl »

duskwuff wrote: post #19
ComputerGuru wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is pretty much the first time I've heard of AWS really deprecating something Amazon has deprecated and then put to the grave multiple payment services. Torrent support in S3 is being killed off with little notice.

> Torrent support in S3 is being killed off with little notice. Did anyone ever seriously use it? It never made much sense to me -- if you're trying to optimize for performance, S3 is already pretty good and a CDN can make that even better; if you're trying to optimize for cost, you wouldn't be using S3 in the first place.

At Airbnb, we considered using it for downloading deployment artifacts like app tarballs and search indexes within our cluster, back when we did deploys to stateful instances. The complexity was never worth it, though, and in the end we moved to Kubernetes anyways.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#92

Post by jitl »

res0nat0r wrote: post #83
jiggawatts wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common error of conflating the name of something with a property that that name typically has. The "RFC 1918 private range" is "private". A publicly routeable range that is firewalled off is "private". There is no practical difference in the level of privacy. There's a difference in naming only. And of course, there is one other difference: The RFC1918 range is worse, because it can never be routed. You hav…

The default VPC setup in each region just has a two public subnet configuration by default. You boot up an EC2 instance and it has a public IP address reachable from the internet (if you open up the security group) and a private IP address. If you want a totally private subnet to put your back end app servers on so they are not routable from the world as an extra layer of safety, then you can do that too. Or, if you'…

Every time you write “subnet” you’re affirming saurik’s original post about the (needless) complexity of network hardware administration being brought to the cloud.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#93

Post by lmm »

res0nat0r wrote: post #83
jiggawatts wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common error of conflating the name of something with a property that that name typically has. The "RFC 1918 private range" is "private". A publicly routeable range that is firewalled off is "private". There is no practical difference in the level of privacy. There's a difference in naming only. And of course, there is one other difference: The RFC1918 range is worse, because it can never be routed. You hav…

The default VPC setup in each region just has a two public subnet configuration by default. You boot up an EC2 instance and it has a public IP address reachable from the internet (if you open up the security group) and a private IP address. If you want a totally private subnet to put your back end app servers on so they are not routable from the world as an extra layer of safety, then you can do that too. Or, if you'…

It's not really any safer though. If I want to say that server A and B can connect to each other and connect out to the outside world, and the outside world can connect in to A but not to B, I should be able to just do that, without having to give each server multiple addresses. Addressing should be decoupled from access control.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#94

Post by jedberg »

mikeocool wrote: post #6
jedberg wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is pretty much the first time I've heard of AWS really deprecating something, I think the only other service that was ever deprecated was SimpleDB, which was replaced with DynamoDB.

You can actually still use SimpleDB: https://aws.amazon.com/simpledb/

The documentation still exists, but you can't launch it anymore.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#95

Post by notatoad »

eli wrote: post #80
jsjohnst wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EC2 Classic was essentially deprecated back in 2013, whether it was said as such at the time or not. 8+ years is an incredibly long sunset period, especially compared to AWS’s competitors.

I know what you mean, but I don’t think it counts as a sunset period if they haven’t announced anything.

yeah, it's not technically a sunset period if they haven't announced the service will be ending. but they've been sending some pretty strong clues - afaik you haven't been able to create new EC2 classic instances for many years now.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#96

Post by notatoad »

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #53
bgentry wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, "depreciate" != "deprecate" — I also used to think it was the former once upon a time :)

One aspect of this mix-up that I enjoy is the fact that deprecating something causes its value to depreciate, by quite a lot!

not only can deprecate cause depreciation, it can be a synonym for depreciate (in the financial meaning). but depreciate can't be a synonym for deprecate (in the end-of-life meaning).

just one of those fun things that gets thrown in to make sure nobody ever fully understands the english language.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#97

Post by bagels »

slownews45 wrote: post #5

Holy crap - is this one of the first actual depreciation and get off service things AWS has done? Kind of crazy honestly? They were kind of famous for NOT doing this sort of thing - at all. GCP just announced enterprise API's I see with some (pretty vague) promises about longevity.

They deprecate specific versions of RDS software, forcing upgrades or peril.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#98

Post by seized »

simfree wrote: post #58
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Combining "enterprise" with "vague promise of longevity" is quite the oxymoron. Google should start celling cell service if they want to continue upleveling their doublespeak abilities.

Google Fi already sells cell service, it's essentially T-Mobile service but without most domestic roaming and with higher prices than Mint, T-Mobile Connect and their other MVNOs. From what I hear MMS stopped working a few months ago for iPhones on Google Fi.

It's a higher price with the benefit of world wide roaming without a special plan. There are also some unlimited and multi line plans now.

I've been on Fi for years and its great.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#99

Post by ArchOversight »

res0nat0r wrote: post #83
jiggawatts wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common error of conflating the name of something with a property that that name typically has. The "RFC 1918 private range" is "private". A publicly routeable range that is firewalled off is "private". There is no practical difference in the level of privacy. There's a difference in naming only. And of course, there is one other difference: The RFC1918 range is worse, because it can never be routed. You hav…

The default VPC setup in each region just has a two public subnet configuration by default. You boot up an EC2 instance and it has a public IP address reachable from the internet (if you open up the security group) and a private IP address. If you want a totally private subnet to put your back end app servers on so they are not routable from the world as an extra layer of safety, then you can do that too. Or, if you'…

> [...] route the traffic out of NAT Gateways.

Which is AWS's way of printing money. Straight up, no lie.

Instead with the advent of IPv6 and everything getting a publicly routable IP address anyway, you no longer can rely on a machine having a "private" IP address.

I recently stood up infrastructure where each machine in the VPC got a public IPv4 and IPv6, and used security groups to set up permissions for what systems can access what other systems.

This way I protect the instances, and don't pay the NAT Gateway fee because the public IP is a 1:1 NAT and doesn't cost anything.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#100

Post by jen20 »

jiggawatts wrote: post #72
res0nat0r wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creating completely private networks in a public cloud, and also being able to link these networks across the WAN to other private networks in different regions seems the opposite of nothing to offer IMO.

This is a common error of conflating the name of something with a property that that name typically has. The "RFC 1918 private range" is "private". A publicly routeable range that is firewalled off is "private". There is no practical difference in the level of privacy. There's a difference in naming only. And of course, there is one other difference: The RFC1918 range is worse, because it can never be routed. You hav…

Wherever compliance is concerned, I prefer private with no choice.
Post reply on HN