251–260 of 377 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> just run a Linux VM + Run extra for failover, HA etc + manage security + Monitor performance + ...
You would have to run that in your own data center which is what original poster was comparing to.
> A new blog post shows you how to use Elastic Load Balancers and NAT Gateways for ingress and egress traffic, while avoiding the use of a public IPv4 address for each instance that you launch. It would be nice if this came with reasonably priced NAT gateways. The current pricing is outrageous.
How much does the NAT gateway cost? Quick search didn't turn up anything (and I don't care about this enough to spend more than a few seconds on it). You can turn a regular EC2 instance running Linux into a NAT box by giving it two network interfaces (hell, you can even do it with a single interface) and a few shell commands; I wonder if that's cheaper, even including the price of the public IPv4. Edit: I see from an…
This is a hidden price hike. It would be more reasonable if there was a corresponding decrease in server costs.
I don't think either of those is true? It's not hidden, they put it right up on their blog https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-aws-public-ipv4-address... the opening line of which is "We are introducing a new charge for public IPv4 addresses" and when it starts and what the cost is. I assume like every other AWS charge it's broken out in great detail on their billing statements and even have APIs to query costs. Usu…
There has been a decrease in server costs. Prices of computers continue to fall. AWS hosting has become (relatively) more expensive over time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention the absurd fact that accessing (IPv4) AWS APIs from a private subnet requires paying for either a NAT gateway or an interface endpoint (we got bitten by sending a ton of Kinesis traffic through a NAT gateway once)
This is one thing Google Cloud does well - traffic to Google services bypasses NAT gateway, even over IPv4. I was curious how they do this, so I set up a service on Google Cloud Run that just echo'd the user's public IP address. When curl'd over IPv4, it said I was coming from a unique local (i.e. private) IPv6 address. The private IPv4 address of my server was embedded in the address, along with some other random-lo…
Have quite a bit of experience with AWS and Azure, and only recently learning about GCP, it’s very clear that Google nailed Some of GCP’s core cloud engineering concepts and got them exactly right.
Although unfortunately they will never reach the size of AWS or (maybe Azure? It’s hard to tell Azure’s market size as they don’t disclose it.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yep, and they should. aws has never really been suited to the hobbyist. does it work for that? of course. is it most cost effective? absolutely not. is it cost effective for people who need the resources? yes.
> is it cost effective for people who need the resources? yes. There is no possible use case in no possible universe where AWS is cost effective. Renting the same compute resources wholesale will cost you 20 times less. (Not a typo.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yep, and they should. aws has never really been suited to the hobbyist. does it work for that? of course. is it most cost effective? absolutely not. is it cost effective for people who need the resources? yes.
> is it cost effective for people who need the resources? yes. There is no possible use case in no possible universe where AWS is cost effective. Renting the same compute resources wholesale will cost you 20 times less. (Not a typo.)
You mean like S3 object storage? That costs less outside AWS because you are usually getting less. That's if you can get it at all.
This finally puts real pressure on software and services to work on IPv6 only. I wouldn't be surprised if within 1-2 release cycles lots of distributions suddenly update just fine with just IPv6, package mangers can download packages over IPv6, lots of APIs gain solid and well-tested IPv6 support, etc.
Businesses and organizations are holding IPv6 back, not consumers. No one I talk to is prioritizing IPv6 migrations or spending money to upgrade gear that will support it. Maybe some net new stuff might get it, but for most businesses IPv4 is and will be the default, simply because they can't be bothered to do something different.
What's Google's IPv4 DNS? 8.8.8.8.
What SHOULD Google's IPv6 DNS be? 8.8.8.8.8.8.
What SHOULD Google's IPv8 DNS be? 8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.
What IS Google's IPv6 DNS? 2001::some::shit::I::::can't::remember//::h0ff::affblah
This is why I'm still stuck on IPv4. I'm a walking DNS server for all the instances I own, I can hammer out IPs when DNS fails me and that's a very useful feature, especially when idiot Wi-Fi hotspots try to DNS poison you when you're trying to SSH into something and the poisoned IPs stay cached even after you've accepted the stupid TOS.
This was expected, and rent seeking. AWS over the last decade has spent $ billions buying up ASN blocks. I've never been one to use the word "rent seeking", but owning IPs is the ultimate rent seeking cloud business. Domain names can change registries but if you own the underlining IP being used (and there's a depleting supply of them) - it's a great business to charge rents on. https://www.techradar.com/news/amazon-…
Most applications will be able to move to v6 eventually. Hopefully moves like this will push that development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have to use AWS' appliance (the NAT GW) to do NAT. You can NAT your traffic yourself from a t2.micro Linux. AWS used to maintain a AMI to do just that, nowadays you have to do it yourself, but it's honestly not much more than adding 2/3 iptables rules. I find this trade-off to be exactly the reason why AWS is so good even for small startups. You can bootstrap something quickly, though it will be a tad expen…
The sweet point should be that the total cost of using the managed services should be less than doing so yourself when you account for manpower. If we have ended up at a place where it’s cheaper to run them yourself on an EC2 box then something has gone awry.
The other large threads on this a week ago (when this link was also posted) weren't good enough?