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

101–110 of 155 posts

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#101

Post by mike503 »

flatiron wrote: post #68
Alex3917 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is this one of the first actual depreciation and get off service things AWS has done? The transition from Amazon Linux to Amazon Linux 2 on Elastic Beanstalk was pretty rough. The migration took a full week, and there was really only a six month window where it could be done.

EB is kinda a mixed bag. Is there much production on EB? It’s great for q&d stuff you don’t want to get into specifics but I couldn’t imagine explaining my architecture with a big “EB does what EB wants to do here” bubble

EB is neat when it works, but it’s only as good as it’s weakest link. I constantly get environments stuck in unavailable statuses etc. I don’t recommend it for anyone except maybe that R&D stuff. Much better to go ECS/Fargate/EKS IMHO.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#102

Post by karmelapple »

dragonwriter wrote: post #39
juliansimioni wrote: post #2

As someone who first used AWS in mid-2009 (just a few weeks before VPCs were announced!), but hasn't used an EC2 Classic enabled AWS account now since around 2012, it's hard to remember just how far the service has come. There were only a few instance types, and they were all slow and small (by todays standards). Everyone's EC2 instances were mostly publicly pingable/ssh-able from the internet. EBS was horribly horri…

> This is pretty much the first time I've heard of AWS really deprecating something Amazon has deprecated several things, they tend not to actually retire them (just reduce thei public profile so people aren't tempted to build new instances, while supporting the existing users indefinitely.)

Do they publicly deprecate them? OpsWorks seems to have been silently deprecated for years, but I sure wish they would have told us that awhile ago. Our sales contact could never give us a straight answer on that.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#104

Post by kadoban »

bagels wrote: post #97
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.

Same for EKS versions. I think versions of software in general they don't really necessarily keep around long, though these are the only two I can think of.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#105

Post by jiggawatts »

jen20 wrote: post #100
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…

Wherever compliance is concerned, I prefer private with no choice.

I too prefer to paint myself into corners irreversibly for the benefit of auditors with no technical understanding and no skin in the game.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#106

Post by j16sdiz »

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 have tools for migration and the replacement actually cover the full feature set.

Unlike Google.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#107

Post by gautamdivgi »

silicon2401 wrote: post #86
rpeden wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite similar mixup is ordinance vs ordnance. Though I suppose they're not mutually exclusive. I'm sure that printed copies of some bylaws are hefty enough to cause serious damage if you lob them at the enemy.

This was hilarious when I saw local businesses put up signs requiring masks due to local "ordnance". I had to wonder what kind of masks they expected us to have

insure vs ensure is another one I've commonly seen. As in "please insure that is complete".

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#108

Post by forgingahead »

In order to fully migrate from EC2-Classic to VPC, you need to find, examine, and migrate all of the following resources:

I'm not sure if this was unintentional or done as a tongue-in-check joke, but "you yourself must FIND what you're using in our services" indicates to me that they're fully aware of how hard it is to easily see what exactly you're paying for when using AWS.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#109

Post by kccqzy »

giovannibonetti wrote: post #61

> In order to fully migrate from EC2-Classic to VPC... Whenever I read anything about networking on AWS, I feel glad by having switched to GCP. On Google Cloud, you can put a project into production without having to fumble with networking at all (off course, the options are there if you need it). I feel more productive by only having to split my cloud resources by projects - which is a high-level concept, and a good…

Indeed. In a couple places we ended up replicating the GCP project feature in AWS by creating multiple different AWS accounts (not IAM accounts, root accounts). It provided isolation between completely different apps. It was quite heavyweight but the isolation benefit was judged worthwhile.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#110

Post by paulddraper »

res0nat0r wrote: post #13
paulddraper wrote: post #11

Hijaking this to say I hate VPC. I hate VPC. Applying 1990s NATting to next gen cloud service? Gotta give the greybeards something to do. The purpose of NATting is to deal with limited IP addresses, a problem that has been solved for a long time now. AWS makes me create a VPC, but I certainly don't set up some central-point-of-failure NAT or pay AWS to do it.

Are you talking about instances you want completely isolated with no public IP addresses and only RFC1918 IP's, but can reach out to the internet? Nat Gateway has been around for ~6 years now and is highly available and a managed service so you just need to click a couple of buttons. https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2015/12/introduci...

Yes, I get to pay AWS $30/month per VPC for immense privileged of accessing the internet from my cloud VPS.
Post reply on HN