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

141–150 of 155 posts

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#141

Post by jedberg »

psanford wrote: post #137
jedberg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What? Yes you can. I know because I just created a new domain today.

Interesting. Looks like you're right. I guess they changed their mind on depreciation. Six years ago at Netflix we had to move all of our SimpleDB domains to DynamoDB because they told us they were shutting down SDB. They also removed it from the console. But apparently you can still use it from the command line.

So yeah, you're right, it's still there.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#142

Post by amerine »

floatboth wrote: post #79
amerine wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, we have some customers left running things on our EC2 classic shard at Heroku. Mostly related to having dependence on customers doing things to migrate them cleanly.

How is that dependent on your customers – doesn't Heroku, like, fully abstract the EC2 backend so that the Heroku customer doesn't even have to know it's on EC2?

We have an ssl endpoint product that’s stuck in classic And requires our customers to make a DNS change to fix/migrate.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#143

Post by jsjohnst »

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.

From Jeff's blog post:

> All AWS accounts created after December 4, 2013 are already VPC-only, unless EC2-Classic was enabled as a result of a support request.

There were announcements made at the time, but I don't remember if they explicitly called it a deprecated product at the time (hence why I hedged my wording in GP comment).

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#144

Post by jsjohnst »

unixhero wrote: post #113
adrusi wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked for AWS, specifically on a backend component specific to EC2 Classic, until late last year, and this will definitely simplify things on Amazon's end. There were, as of last year, still some large customers using Classic. It's not just a drop in the bucket compared to VPC, though definitely quite a bit smaller.

What I don't understand, and perhaps you may help me understand; is what powers the backend of AWS? Mainframes?

> is what powers the backend of AWS?

Full exact technical details aren't shared, but there are some videos on Youtube which touch on it their customized x86 and ARM server racks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6WlzHLxNKI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukWig2QLCWM

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#145

Post by slownews45 »

jitl wrote: post #90
flatiron wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Notion (my employer) was 100% Elastic Beanstalk until about a month ago, now we’re 100% ECS. We migrated once our 1200 box cluster started stalling deploys randomly while saying everything was healthy in the API. At that many instances, the some pages in the dashboard would hang the browser. One bad day, it took like 18 hours from deploy attempt started to AWS resolving the situation by fiddling knobs on their side.…

ECS and some ECS Fargate work great - I really like that combo. Seems pretty low overhead, and ECS anywhere I've had some luck with just playing around (you can do a local box on a 1Gig link with tons of RAM / Storage etc).

My one compliant is around having fallback to on-remise providers / capacity provider etc support - doesn't seem fully fleshed out across ECS/Fargate/ECS anywhere but I may not have read docs properly yet.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#146

Post by lowbloodsugar »

rswail wrote: post #122
lowbloodsugar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you think its 1990s NAT? Launch an instance with a public IP and there's no central-point-of-failure. The "Internet Gateway" isn't an actual physical device.

The IGW is not the NAT gw. You need both for private networks outgoing public connections.

Sure. It's not the NAT gw. But it is NAT. Op was complaining about having to use 1990s NAT, and I was responding to that. NAT gw isn't really 1990s NAT either, since it autoscales. I assume the sentiment was the complaint about having a "public" subnet and a "private" subnet, and using a NAT to route traffic for the "private" subnet. Its been a while since I used AWS, but I was at a large company and that's simply how IT Security demanded it. So, of course, AWS offers a solution for that market.

But if you use IGW, then your "public" subnet is still actually a private subnet: all networking to hosts inside the VPC occurs with private IPs. The public IPs are 1:1 NATed by the IGW. Your instances never see packets with their public IP. And you can launch instances in the "public" subnet without a NAT mapping if you want. For IPv6, you can have an egress only IGW.

So you can do "traditional" NAT if you want, or you can do "modern cloud" NAT using IGW. It is really your choice. I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm just letting OP know that there is a non-1990s option. =)

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#147

Post by murgindrag »

psanford wrote: post #139
murgindrag wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My family is on Google Apps free edition. Google has been doing it's best to make my life miserable. It recently killed Google Voice in the free edition, so my younger child can no longer get a phone number. With zero warning. I've been through this each time I've (tried) to use Google for anything critical, so I've stopped. I mentioned a family example since B2B would be confidential. But I can count at least a half…

GSuite is separate from Google Cloud.

Not according to Google:

https://cloud.google.com/products/ https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/workspace

But it's a moot point in either case, if you want long-term support.

* Internal corporate lines shift with re-orgs

* Culture is shared and common

* I've had issues across Google. I listed the ones I can talk about.

My lesson, each time, has been:

Never Use Google For Business.

Ever.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#148

Post by ravedave5 »

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.

The writing has been on the wall for quite a while. I got us off our last classics this year due to the october date they had been saying before.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#149

Post by psanford »

murgindrag wrote: post #147
psanford wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GSuite is separate from Google Cloud.

Not according to Google: https://cloud.google.com/products/ https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/workspace But it's a moot point in either case, if you want long-term support. * Internal corporate lines shift with re-orgs * Culture is shared and common * I've had issues across Google. I listed the ones I can talk about. My lesson, each time, has been: Never Use Google For Business. Ever.

Considering how many companies use gsuite and are happy with it, I'd say thats a pretty silly lesson.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#150

Post by terom »

orf wrote: post #128
mwcampbell wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At $0.045/hour, NAT gateways are expensive. This sets up perverse incentives, as it's cheaper to keep wasting public IPv4 addresses. If anyone from AWS is watching, I suggest that you make the base fixed price of NAT gateways way cheaper, and maybe add a small extra charge for EC2 instances and Fargate tasks with public IPs.

It’s $30 per month, which is not expensive and is gonna be a rounding error to most users.

You need one of those per AZ, and multiples of that if you split up projects across VPCs or AWS accounts.

AWS accounts and VPCs are free, so NAT gateways can form a significant part of the per-account/VPC base cost, which can be a significant part of your total cost for a small project/environment.

Post reply on HN