Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Serverless Horrors

serverlesshorrors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 503 posts

Re: Serverless Horrors

#441

Post by znpy »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #429
JJMcJ wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an example of why cloud hosting is so scary. Yes, Amazon, and I assume Azure and Google's cloud and others, "usually" refund the money. But I don't want to be forced into bankruptcy because my five visitor a week demo project suddenly becomes the target of a DDOS for no reason at all and the hosting company decides this isn't a "usually" so please send the wire transfer.

Aws, able to bill everything down to like milliseconds of usage... We can't implement a basic cost limiter policy. I think we all know why.

> I think we all know why.

There's no need to imply that, it's not illegal to criticise AWS. They do not want anybody to be able to set a limit on spend as that would probably hurt the business model.

Re: Serverless Horrors

#442

Post by ghost_co »

Does anyone heard a success stories from cloud usage?

Really, we(they) in the company decided to move in cloud everything from on-prem, it should save costs say them.

But, as result you anyway need DevOps, some complications with development, local environments and not only.

For not short career I faced some good examples, but it's more about unique situations, not a rule and a lot companies continue pay a lot for some small bunch of utility.

Maybe I'm wrong, but such topics about this hell heard a lot of timesand only on some conference: success stories (because they should say: success)

Re: Serverless Horrors

#443

Post by croes »

jsheard wrote: post #54
croes wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why I prefer prepaid cards or those I can easily freeze to prevent any booking.

If your card is declined and they don't feel like forgiving the bill, won't they just send debt collectors after you instead?

Yes, but it's better they need to get their money than you need to get your money back. 100.000 easily can put you in ruining debt. It's the better position to still have your money even if you have to pay.

Re: Serverless Horrors

#445

Post by Etherlord87 »

phoenixhaber wrote: post #43

When I was learning to program through a bootcamp I spun up an elastic beanstalk instance that was free but required a credit card to prove your identity. No problem that makes sense - it's an easy way to prove authentication as a bot can't spam a credit card (or else it would be financial fraud and most likely a felony). Amazon then charged me one hundred thousand dollars as the server was hit by bot spam. I had the…

> When I was learning to program through a bootcamp I spun up an elastic beanstalk instance that was free but required a credit card to prove your identity. No problem that makes sense

It does on the surface, but what doesn't make sense is to register with a credit card and not read the terms very carefully: both for the cloud service and for the bank service.

In this aspect cash is so much better because you have only one contract to worry about...

Re: Serverless Horrors

#446

Post by raxxorraxor »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #375
randallsquared wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They refunded you $100k with few questions asked, and you hate them for it? They exposed him to 100K of liability without any way to avoid it (other than to avoid AWS entirely), and then happened to blink, in this case, with no guarantee that it would happen again. If you don't happen to have a few hundred thousand liquid, suddenly getting a bill for 100K might well be a life-ruiningly stressful event.

Yes, he could have set up a billing alert that triggered an action to shut everything down. Easy way is to take away privileges from the IAM roles attached to the processes.

Bad design if that isn't in place for a new free-tier experiment.

This is the problem right here. I moved from AWS and specifically Beanstalk because I don't want to be some "certified AWS goblin". I just wanted to host something sensibly.

Other hosting companies don't have this problem and while I cannot complain about AWS as a service, this can be improved if there would be the will to do so. I believe there are other incentives at work here and that isn't a service to the customer.

Re: Serverless Horrors

#447

Post by Etherlord87 »

mlhpdx wrote: post #205
hamdingers wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This analogy would make sense if the saw lacked a basic and obvious safety feature (billing limits) because Stanley profited immensely from cutting your finger off.

What seems like a basic feature to you is a hindrance to me. I don’t want to have to disable “safeguards” all over the place just because of loud and rare complaints.

It's as easy as having a single option:

> Do you want safeguards to be enabled by default, so you have to disable manually those you want to resign from?

OR

> Do you want safeguards to be disabled by default, so you have to enable manually those you want to be in place?

To then rebel against it and say "I lose seconds of my life reading this, I don't want to have to!" would be ridiculous.

Re: Serverless Horrors

#448

Post by Etherlord87 »

Galanwe wrote: post #74
ctvo wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took a workshop class and was told to setup a track saw. The course didn't bother explaining how to utilize it properly or protect yourself. I ended up losing a finger. I truly hate Stanley Tools with a passion and if I ever need to use another track saw, I'll use someone else.

> I ended up losing a finger You forgot to mention Stanley Tools paid for the hospital bill.

No. Stanley Tools owns the hospital and would profit from the operation, but when you said you don't have the money they decided to let you go. Perhaps because legally they would have to anyway, or otherwise they would suffer various legal and reputational consequences.

Re: Serverless Horrors

#449

Post by small_scombrus »

franktankbank wrote: post #26
sherburt3 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe they changed that shortly after that blog post went viral: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2024/08/amazon-s3...

Seems an interesting oversight. I can just imagine the roundtable, uhh guys who do we charge for 403? Who can we charge? But what if people hit random buckets as an attack? Great!

> I can just imagine the roundtable

That's the best part!

The devs probably never thought of it, the support people who were complained to were probably either unable to reach the devs, or time crunched enough to not be able to, and who as a project manager would want to say they told their Devs to fix an issue that will lose the company money!

Re: Serverless Horrors

#450

Post by Etherlord87 »

mlhpdx wrote: post #202
ctvo wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took a workshop class and was told to setup a track saw. The course didn't bother explaining how to utilize it properly or protect yourself. I ended up losing a finger. I truly hate Stanley Tools with a passion and if I ever need to use another track saw, I'll use someone else.

This is a good analogy. When you use a tool you are responsible for what it does.

I'm a safety inspector. Of course this is much more nuanced than this. One crucial aspect of a tool safety is proper documentation. It's also important who the tool is targeted for. There are different safety standards based on user's competence. Some "tools" will be toys for children, some will be for disabled people including people with intellectual disabilities, some will be for general populace, and only some for trained experts.

If a tool is designed for experts, but you as the manufacturer or distributor know the tool is used by general populace, you know it's being misused every now and then, you know it harms the user AND YOU KNOW YOU BENEFIT FROM THIS HARM, AND YOU COULD EASILY AVOID IT - that sounds like something you could go to jail for.

I think if Amazon was a Polish company, it would be forced by UOKiK (Office of Competition and Consumer Protection) to send money to every client harmed this way. I actually got ~$150 this way once. I know in USA the law is much less protective, it surprises me Americans aren't much more careful as a result when it comes to e.g. reading the terms of service.

Post reply on HN