Live data from Hacker News

Netlify just sent me a $104k bill for a simple static site

old.reddit.com

341–350 of 836 posts

Re: Netlify just sent me a $104k bill for a simple static site

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing ”devil’s” advocate: tracking spend in real-time is not trivial. It adds complexity to stack. Bugs in the feature can cause sites to go down (for long time) without a reason. Larger online businesses likely rather sort out the problems later than risk shutting down in the middle of unexpected success. (But I also would like to see this feature)

Not really. AWS has budget alerts right? And I can read those budget alerts through their API. So it would be trivial for me to poll their budget API for an alert, and immediatly trigger a shutdown of my Cloudfront service. Why can't they do that for me?

"AWS Budgets information is updated up to three times a day. Updates typically occur 8–12 hours after the previous update" [1]

Something based on this could be definitely better than nothing, but might also give false impression of safety.

[1] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cost-management/latest/userguide...

Re: Netlify just sent me a $104k bill for a simple static site

#342

Netlify CEO here. Our support team has reached out to the user from the thread to let them know they're not getting charged for this. It's currently our policy to not shut down free sites during traffic spikes that doesn't match attack patterns, but instead forgiving any bills from legitimate mistakes after the fact. Apologies that this didn't come through in the initial support reply.

"Current policy?" So, you will retain a right to change such fees when you feel like it.

This is a serious matter. We are building a new site for our company with Netlify, but we can't open ourselves to this predatory practice. And even if you do not mean to be predatory, even the option of such is enough.

If not resolved with a clean, legally binding promise, our company (and probably quite a few others) must move our business to Cloudflare, Amazon, or some other competitor of yours.

Re: Netlify just sent me a $104k bill for a simple static site

#343
post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long has this been the "current" policy? 2 hours?

ex employee here, left 4 years ago. was policy back then too.

  but instead forgiving any bills from legitimate mistakes after the fact
What are these legitimate mistakes?

Re: Netlify just sent me a $104k bill for a simple static site

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine you lost your job. So you are here enjoying creating and hosting your hobby projects in theses services. Now, suddenly one fine morning you get slapped with $104K bill because someone decided to randomly ddos your one page dog lover website. Now, who in the would would be thinking of having ddos protection for their hobby project? This is just absurd thinking.

Can't hosts just make a site unavailable once it reaches its plan's bandwidth limit, DDoS or not? I think being offline is a lesser headache than a large bill, especially for those who are inclined to a free tier to begin with.

Folks regularly show up in HN comments during these discussions stating the opposite—that it's categorically better for all sites/projects, now matter how inconsequential, to stay online. It's weird.

This includes some of the TPTB, too. Occasionally, though, someone'll say the quiet part out loud. E.g. re fly.io:

> putting work into features specifically to minimize how much people spend seems like a good way to fail a company

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24699292>

Re: Netlify just sent me a $104k bill for a simple static site

#346
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? If you use Vercel in the Free Tier you cannot automatically go to the Pro tier. You need to manually upgrade. Unless you need more than the Free-Tier Vercel should be fine.

If you use Netlify in the free tier you cannot automatically go to pro tier either. Yet they will charge you for bandwidth > 100GB, and THERE IS NO WAY FOR YOU TO SWITCH THAT OFF, even in the free tier. "Should be fine" is exactly what is not the case here. Better check your Vercel terms again.

I've never given them any card details. Worst they can do is shutdown my website (or replace with goatse).

Re: Netlify just sent me a $104k bill for a simple static site

#347
I'm wondering whether this story has been manually downranked.

Posted only 3 hours ago and 800+ votes but it's suddenly dropped from top 3 (on page 1) to 38th (on page 2).

Is it worth noting that Netlify bought two Y Combinator startups or is that a crazy conspiracy theory?

> On May 19, 2021, Netlify announced the acquisition of FeaturePeek, a Y Combinator and Matrix Partners backed startup that enables developer teams to preview frontend content.

> On November 17, 2021, Netlify acquired Y Combinator and SignalFire-backed OneGraph to allow for the composition of apps with APIs and services using GraphQL.

Re: Netlify just sent me a $104k bill for a simple static site

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. AWS has budget alerts right? And I can read those budget alerts through their API. So it would be trivial for me to poll their budget API for an alert, and immediatly trigger a shutdown of my Cloudfront service. Why can't they do that for me?

"AWS Budgets information is updated up to three times a day. Updates typically occur 8–12 hours after the previous update" [1] Something based on this could be definitely better than nothing, but might also give false impression of safety. [1] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cost-management/latest/userguide...

It's something. I started looking into the budget alert docs and it does use SNS so it should be easy to have something polling that queue and respond in any way necessary.

I'm imagining an alert to the on-call team, and a soft shutdown until the on-call team can figure out the next step.

If it can save a few thousand dollars, it's worth it. Each business must make their own estimate of course.

Re: Netlify just sent me a $104k bill for a simple static site

#349

Netlify CEO here. Our support team has reached out to the user from the thread to let them know they're not getting charged for this. It's currently our policy to not shut down free sites during traffic spikes that doesn't match attack patterns, but instead forgiving any bills from legitimate mistakes after the fact. Apologies that this didn't come through in the initial support reply.

I’ve been a netlify user since 2017 and I just deleted all my sites. I can’t risk receiving a $100k bill for toy projects. Your “current policy” is not good enough.

Re: Netlify just sent me a $104k bill for a simple static site

#350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because amazon and big telecom convinced you that bandwidth is expensive. It isn't. Once the equipment is there, you might as well use it.

Wouldn't there be at least a handful of competitors if the economics worked out that way?

A good data center can sell you a sustained 10Gbps for, and I’m guessing at going rate, but like 4-7k a month? If you’re making a commitment cheaper, and that’s basically a retail pipe for someone in a colocated facility.

For larger providers, bandwidth cost drops tremendously, especially if you’re well connected as transit is much cheaper and if you are really large or a network provider you may even be routing between your own facilities or in some cases from one customer to another and every large scale isp is going to want a “direct link” to your facility (a peering relationship). Those costs are astronomically small at scale for bandwidth.

The ISP or similar then turns around and sells a sustained network throughout as GB transferred, which isn’t how wholesale bandwidth is sold at all. So the get to charge for the data the pipe moves while they only pay for the connection itself — the markup added to this process is considerable.

For someone operated a global CDN, which is basically what they do, they have racks of storage and computer collocated all over the world and optimize the living crap out of their network to reduce their costs and make it run on as many peering relationships as possible. It’s an expensive and complex business to set up, but once it’s set up you get a fairly good and consistent return out of it.

The reason for this article is related to the nature of that business: it’s the issue of liability.

When you have policies where you protect your clients from downsides and excessive use on the network, you suddenly have to assume the role of paying attention to what’s on the network and policing it’s contents. That’s not possible with a massive system like this generally, so they push the liability down to the customer and discount the mistakes that come up. That’s why things are set up like this… this kind of stuff isn’t their business at all really. They are looking for the customers that convert and pay, which is very profitable, and the free tier is often thought of as a sustainable cost if you are large enough scale, as it substitutes for the rather massive expense of marketing and sales which is one of the largest expenses in a bandwidth focused business. CAC is the free tier.

There also competitors, but the benefits of scale are tremendous in terms of cost efficiency. A large provider might be paying just a very small fraction of a penny or less (even “free”) compared to what a small provider is paying. So that’s why you end up with fewer competitors because it truly is a business that benefits from economies of scale.

There are other smarter people on here who can correct any mistakes I’ve made or provide better pricing or whatever, but that’s the more in depth answer.

Post reply on HN