How to waste money in just one line each...
Simplifying AWS like this only serves to normalize wasteful spending on the "cloud".
This works when the economy is great....not so much when businesses are looking to trim costs.
AWS services explained in one line each
51–60 of 355 posts
Re: AWS services explained in one line each
#52Consider that your typical enterprise software project will use quite a lot of these, and that you pay for them all separately, and sometimes pay twice for them (e.g. S3 you pay for storage and for outbound bandwidth). It's quite a tour de force how Amazon have taken "separation of concerns", applied it to web services and used it to create complex and difficult to understand or predict pricing to print money. Bravo.
Have you ever used AWS? There's a whole suite of tools they provide around pricing and budgeting.
> It's quite a tour de force how Amazon have taken "separation of concerns", applied it to web services and used it to create complex and difficult to understand or predict pricing to print money.
Is applying separation of concerns to web services really that bad? Look, if you're a small company with a simple product, you can just put your stuff on a few EC2 boxes and pay the monthly bill for that. At that size, your infra costs are going to be dwarfed by your other costs of doing business anyway. If you're a big business, you can literally pay people to keep track of this stuff. You've got the extra money, because now you don't employ data center architects, server engineers, etc. AWS is able to "print money" because it brings a lot of value to many businesses.
Re: AWS services explained in one line each
#53Useful and interesting but some of them are either blank or, well: > After reading it over and over again, i still have no idea what it does. > Some quantum thing. It’s in preview so I have no idea what it is. > in preview so no idea.
Yes.. some of them I have absolutely no clue on what it does. They might serve some edgecase specific for that domain. There are a few services in preview which I cannot see for myself what it does. I will try to update and correct services as soon as I have more info (or somebody can provide it to me)
No one dast blame this man.
Re: AWS services explained in one line each
#54It's sad that this is so necessary, but I'm still confused by the very first two lines of this list. > EC2 Virtual Private Servers > Lightsail Amazon’s hosting provider (vps, dns, storage) Both of these are VPS? EC2 has no storage? Absolutely not a criticism of your list, more a comment on how baffling AWS is these days. I stopped using AWS once they hit the point where I couldn't reasonably be expected to remember w…
EC2 requires you to specify the attached storage to it, giving you more options; lightsail doesnt. Lightsail is more like the ye'old VPS services.
Re: AWS services explained in one line each
#55AWS sounds like a good idea until you start calculating the cost of the setup with any kind of clustering and moderate data traffic.
The compute is really a negligible part and one that you can severely effect. Outbound bandwidth is the real killer, going at ~$90/TB
Or RDS, which jumps from db.t3.medium, to db.r5.large.
Re: AWS services explained in one line each
#56It's sad that this is so necessary, but I'm still confused by the very first two lines of this list. > EC2 Virtual Private Servers > Lightsail Amazon’s hosting provider (vps, dns, storage) Both of these are VPS? EC2 has no storage? Absolutely not a criticism of your list, more a comment on how baffling AWS is these days. I stopped using AWS once they hit the point where I couldn't reasonably be expected to remember w…
Well, to EC2 you attach storage from another AWS service. I've not used Lightsail, but from the description I imagine it's a more 'single package, quickstart' service mirroring the experience you might get from a PaaS like DigitalOcean/Scaleway/Vultr/etc. vs. the IaaS style provisioning of compute & storage independently.
Re: AWS services explained in one line each
#57Consider that your typical enterprise software project will use quite a lot of these, and that you pay for them all separately, and sometimes pay twice for them (e.g. S3 you pay for storage and for outbound bandwidth). It's quite a tour de force how Amazon have taken "separation of concerns", applied it to web services and used it to create complex and difficult to understand or predict pricing to print money. Bravo.
Have you ever used AWS? There's a whole suite of tools they provide around pricing and budgeting. > It's quite a tour de force how Amazon have taken "separation of concerns", applied it to web services and used it to create complex and difficult to understand or predict pricing to print money. Is applying separation of concerns to web services really that bad? Look, if you're a small company with a simple product, yo…
> Have you ever used AWS? There's a whole suite of tools they provide around pricing and budgeting.
They don't work. To elaborate, they fail to provide the user with information with enough clarity to allow him to form accurate mental models of what is being used,what it costs, and what is the implication in cost of applying some change.
Heck, at any given moment it's unexplainably hard to tell exactly which AWS services are you actually using, and being billed for.
The only reliable info on cost it the invoice you receive at the end of the month. Even then, the AWS guys felt the need to develop a full blown machine learning service to help customers predict what their next invoice will be.
Re: AWS services explained in one line each
#58Is there something similar for Apache projects?
Re: AWS services explained in one line each
#59Similar to https://expeditedsecurity.com/aws-in-plain-english/ Why does AWS use such convoluted language? Is it because they're dominant and it adds friction to moving to another provider?
I think it's because naming things is hard, that link proves it by coming up with worse names for almost everything they tried to rename, and often far, far worse.
Imagine the confusion if S3 were called "Amazon Unlimited FTP Server." That gets every word wrong, except that "Amazon" is merely redundant. It's not unlimited (having to pay for a thing is a limit), it's not using FTP, and it's a service, not a server.
Or if VPC was "Amazon Virtual Colocated Rack". A "colocated rack" means your computer in their datacenter. They actually have this service, it's called Direct Connect, because you can actually
Lambda does require you've got some vague notion of what lambda notation is. But "AWS App Scripts" suggests it's for mobile "apps", but it is not specific to those. And it suggests it's only for scripts, but you can run an entire application on Lambda just fine.
Or even DynamoDB. They recommend "Amazon NoSQL." They're not offering many NoSQL databases, just their proprietary one: DynamoDB. They have a service that offers many relational databases and that is called Relational Database Service.
Re: AWS services explained in one line each
#60Consider that your typical enterprise software project will use quite a lot of these, and that you pay for them all separately, and sometimes pay twice for them (e.g. S3 you pay for storage and for outbound bandwidth). It's quite a tour de force how Amazon have taken "separation of concerns", applied it to web services and used it to create complex and difficult to understand or predict pricing to print money. Bravo.
Have you ever used AWS? There's a whole suite of tools they provide around pricing and budgeting. > It's quite a tour de force how Amazon have taken "separation of concerns", applied it to web services and used it to create complex and difficult to understand or predict pricing to print money. Is applying separation of concerns to web services really that bad? Look, if you're a small company with a simple product, yo…
> There's a whole suite of tools they provide around pricing and budgeting.
It could be there are such tools. But they are impossible to find, setup or understand for someone who is not already an AWS expert. I recently got a $500 bill from AWS. It was impossible for me to find out which S3 buckets (or even specific files) caused these costs. I looked at this for half an hour and have used AWS before. They just don't tell you how to obtain this information. Or maybe they do, and it is so well hidden that it might as well not exist. This was a horrible user experience. As a customer, I want to know what I'm being charged for. The fact that AWS make it so difficult make me never want to use them again.