131–140 of 397 posts
this is misleading, as cost curves are usually exponential for these types of managed services
How so? I don't understand what would make it exponential as opposed to merely linear with traffic. There's nothing in their pricing documentation to suggest this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These stories are everywhere. A couple months ago, it hit an associate of mine pretty hard, he moved a small python monitoring and statistics application off a laptop in the office to AWS. A couple weeks later he came back and discovered that it had burned up a few thousand $'s in storage and transfer fees for what normally was a couple hundred MBs of data a day being passed around and a some database updates. Since…
Not sure what happened to your associate but this sounds way, way out there. I run a fairly resource intensive SaaS on AWS (lots of background jobs generating data) and we barely go over $600 a month. People should not be scared of by these anecdotes, however true they may be. It’s perfectly possible to run a very cost effective business on AWS.
Sure, to most people it will never happen. But the risk is always there. Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
I have used it for work-related reasons and indeed the service is quite nice. But I don't use Google Cloud Run for personal projects for two reasons: - No way of limiting the expenses AFAIK. I don't want the possibility of having a huge bill on my name that I cannot pay. This unfortunately applies to other clouds. - The risk of being locked out. For many, many reasons (including the above), you can get locked out of…
Your liability is not capped anywhere. I better stick to 5$/mo DO for my side-projects.
> The service will create more and more instances of your application up to the limit you defined
The docs confirm an instance maximum can be set and the price per instance can be less than $5/month.
The thing I really want out of these services is the ability to set a payment cap. It’s probably never going to be an issue, but I have anxiety, and I can’t sleep easily knowing that if I fuck up, if someone sinister abuses my application or whatever I may be stuck with a giant bill.
It seems absolutely within amazon's technical ability to allow you to prepay for usage, and then evaluate your use on a per-hour basis. I have a side project that uses AWS at the moment, and while stuff like serverless RDS instances are really cool, it scares me that somehow amazon is going to have a bug which empties my checking account. I've read as much of the documentation as I can find and have done everything I…
I have used it for work-related reasons and indeed the service is quite nice. But I don't use Google Cloud Run for personal projects for two reasons: - No way of limiting the expenses AFAIK. I don't want the possibility of having a huge bill on my name that I cannot pay. This unfortunately applies to other clouds. - The risk of being locked out. For many, many reasons (including the above), you can get locked out of…
> The service will create more and more instances of your application up to the limit you defined
The Cloud Run docs confirm an instance maximum can be set and the price per instance can be less than $5/month.
I have used it for work-related reasons and indeed the service is quite nice. But I don't use Google Cloud Run for personal projects for two reasons: - No way of limiting the expenses AFAIK. I don't want the possibility of having a huge bill on my name that I cannot pay. This unfortunately applies to other clouds. - The risk of being locked out. For many, many reasons (including the above), you can get locked out of…
For me, this is the main reason I try not to use any Google products, except for Gmail and Android. For mail, I started to migrate away from Google to reduce risk of being locked out.
To me with my limited understanding this seems like just another step.
Now granted when it comes to work, I'm using docker with specifics that I know why I would want / can specify with docker ... but for personal projects this ever comes up for me.
But otherwise for personal projects it just never comes up.
Yet on the other hand when it comes to various examples I see more and more that involve docker where, I'm not sure it needs to / what the advantage is.
Obviously there must be some strategic choices / advantages I'm missing.
I have used it for work-related reasons and indeed the service is quite nice. But I don't use Google Cloud Run for personal projects for two reasons: - No way of limiting the expenses AFAIK. I don't want the possibility of having a huge bill on my name that I cannot pay. This unfortunately applies to other clouds. - The risk of being locked out. For many, many reasons (including the above), you can get locked out of…
Why not just make another Google Account just for this project? It’s what I do since year, basically for every customer I work, I create a new account and even share the credentials with the customer (if he wants it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm currently serving an api that uses a 500mb resnet v2 model. The bootup takes to long, so now I have a single instance that can't handle any peaks and costs too much. Doesn't your model take to long to spin up before being able to serve a request ?
Yes unfortunately, but that's the caveat of services-on-demand. I'm looking more into more efficient/cheap model deployment workflows. (it might be just running the equivalent of Cloud Run on Knative/GKE, backed by GPUs)
If you're familiar with AWS, would using AWS Batch exclusively with Spot pricing [0] (or Fargate with Spot pricing) and Aurora Serverless [1] been cheaper than Cloud Run + CloudSQL?
[0] Say, the service runs for 5 mins every hour for 30 days. The respectable a1.large instance would cost $0.50 per month, the cheapest t3.nano would cost around $0.19 per month.
[1] Say, the service stores rolling 10 GiB/Month ($1.00) and does about 1000 calls per 5 minutes every hour ($0.20) using 2 ACUs ($3.60). This would cost $4.80 per month.