21–30 of 139 posts
"a $180 actual cost. I was left with a light headed feeling, it's a lot of money for me" people still play with fire. limit your losses, go with digital ocean or something for 5$/mo flat no matter what.
It's nice not to have to worry about a server, but I feel like there are just as many little things to futz with in serverless architectures especially before "environment" variables existed in Lambda.
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.
Run+know your infra, none of this is a problem. Serverless is a scam.
Qualify your statements.
"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…
If you really wanted, you could create a script that after a certain billed amount gets reached switches your site via route53 over to a static s3 page that says "down for maintenance" or something until you figure out why your forecasted billing amount is so high. forcastedSpend is an object you can call via api: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/awsaccountbilling/latest/aboutv2/... and a SDK like boto3: http://boto3.readt…
This is not a "Serverless" problem; this is a mistake a developer made that used a pay-per-use system. If I write code that launches EC2 instances and I accidentally set it to launch an instance every second instead of minute because I divided wrong, that's my fault.
So I guess the question is, with a mistake like this, is it better to be charged hundreds or thousands of dollars, or to have your service degrade or go offline until you can fix it?
This is not a "Serverless" problem; this is a mistake a developer made that used a pay-per-use system. If I write code that launches EC2 instances and I accidentally set it to launch an instance every second instead of minute because I divided wrong, that's my fault.
So yeah, let's blame the developer, but let's not play like mistakes don't happen and they're not costly in the "serverless" world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Azure has this. When you hit your spending limit, it shuts down your services.
And now we wait for the first reports of production services that were shutdown due to spending limits :)