11–20 of 139 posts
I'm surprised people still talk about cloud services as being cheaper esp where developers are free to use what they want.
"The actual cost is now $206 and over $1000 forecasted, it makes me think twice about using pay-per-use services in the future." Never use a pay-per-use service that does not include a reasonable "turn off after $X" feature and appropriate warnings. Also, never use such services without being sure to configure such settings. I like to think of this as a self-inflicted "DDOC" attack: Distributed Denial of Capital. Bes…
> Never use a pay-per-use service that does not include a reasonable "turn off after $X" feature and appropriate warnings. None of the "Cloud providers" offer that. They "claim" that it could impact service - yeah, service of debt that you owe them.
"The actual cost is now $206 and over $1000 forecasted, it makes me think twice about using pay-per-use services in the future." Never use a pay-per-use service that does not include a reasonable "turn off after $X" feature and appropriate warnings. Also, never use such services without being sure to configure such settings. I like to think of this as a self-inflicted "DDOC" attack: Distributed Denial of Capital. Bes…
and a SDK like boto3:
http://boto3.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reference/services/bud...
"The actual cost is now $206 and over $1000 forecasted, it makes me think twice about using pay-per-use services in the future." Never use a pay-per-use service that does not include a reasonable "turn off after $X" feature and appropriate warnings. Also, never use such services without being sure to configure such settings. I like to think of this as a self-inflicted "DDOC" attack: Distributed Denial of Capital. Bes…
> Never use a pay-per-use service that does not include a reasonable "turn off after $X" feature and appropriate warnings. None of the "Cloud providers" offer that. They "claim" that it could impact service - yeah, service of debt that you owe them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Never use a pay-per-use service that does not include a reasonable "turn off after $X" feature and appropriate warnings. None of the "Cloud providers" offer that. They "claim" that it could impact service - yeah, service of debt that you owe them.
Azure has this. When you hit your spending limit, it shuts down your services.
Unless I have hard guarantees, I give "cloud providers" re-loadable cards. Can't take more money than what's on there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Never use a pay-per-use service that does not include a reasonable "turn off after $X" feature and appropriate warnings. None of the "Cloud providers" offer that. They "claim" that it could impact service - yeah, service of debt that you owe them.
Azure has this. When you hit your spending limit, it shuts down your services.
Off topic, but the "serverless" moniker needs to die. I propose "adminless" as in "server I don't have to admin, configure, or patch" as being much more descriptive of whats really going on.
But if you can ignore that, you can probably also ignore the fact that your code runs on a server.