511–520 of 657 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or simply use a proper CDN that doesn't pretend to eat all the cost for a flat fee but then sometimes does not. BunnyCDN has an amazing volume tier at half a cent per GB.
Will BunnyCDN reliably keep an 18gb file in cache without hitting origin? I use and like Bunny, but relying on that to not get a massive bill in the mail scares the shit out of me.
That's the typical story. Something goes wrong and it costs you (typically a small company) a lot of money. At that time just nobody is looking at metrics. Even alarms don't help absolutely because they can also be missed. The only thing that would really help were a hard spending limit that stops all services except storage. If your site is important there will be such an amount of user feedback that it is impossibl…
> The only thing that would really help were a hard spending limit that stops all services except storage. Sadly, I haven't found a way to do that with AWS
Actions weren't there last time I checked (few years ago).
Don't put Cloudflare in front of a Cloud egress bill. i.e. don't do this: Azure|Amazon > Cloudflare Always use your own proxy where the egress is well within your free tier, i.e. do this: Azure|Amazon > Hetzner|Linode > Cloudflare Why? Because Cloudflare cache is a massively multi-tenant LRU cache and whilst hot files will be cached well (and with Cloudflare Tiered Cache even better - but this itself is a cost) anyth…
(search HN and reddit for that URL, you'll see they've been around and recommended for a really long time).
These stories almost always boil down to this fundamental conflict of what you want for a personal project vs a business. (though in this case yes, Troy Hunt's HIBP is larger than a lot of startup businesses) In a business setting, you want your service to stay up, at the cost of spike in costs if accidents or mistakes happen. In a personal project, you want there to be hard limit on cost, and your service to go down…
No you don’t. This is absolutely not a given. Being a “business” doesn’t mean you suddenly have unlimited budget.
The vast majority of businesses are not “web scale” and are better off taking an availability outage than suddenly handling 1,000,000x the normal volume of traffic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like they have actually reduces their footprint. It not that they do run on a single webserver it's that they can run on one.
> Looks like they have actually reduces their footprint. i don't remember who said it but a quote i really like is "it's not finished when there's nothing left to add, it's finished when there's nothing left to take away"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly the cloud providers probably make money by not having hard limits. But it's also the case that if they did implement hard limits of some sort, you'd be reading blog posts about how AWS destroyed my project just when it was going big because someone stuck a circuit breaker foot gun in some corner and everything stopped working properly when usage spiked. I do think there should probably be a hard circuit bre…
But... they do implement limits.
These stories almost always boil down to this fundamental conflict of what you want for a personal project vs a business. (though in this case yes, Troy Hunt's HIBP is larger than a lot of startup businesses) In a business setting, you want your service to stay up, at the cost of spike in costs if accidents or mistakes happen. In a personal project, you want there to be hard limit on cost, and your service to go down…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly the cloud providers probably make money by not having hard limits. But it's also the case that if they did implement hard limits of some sort, you'd be reading blog posts about how AWS destroyed my project just when it was going big because someone stuck a circuit breaker foot gun in some corner and everything stopped working properly when usage spiked. I do think there should probably be a hard circuit bre…
But... they do implement limits.
Ah the old cloud provider switcheroo. Yip this is the way they make money. They make it easy to setup some gigantic hugely scalable website then hit you with a gigantic scaled up bill. AWS would do this as well. Team I'm in at the moment is in the early stages of cloud adoption but the company in total has fell hook line and sinker for AWS. When I mentioned the cost there is always an excuse. The main one being that…
There's an argument to be made for quality of life for your employees. As someone who has transitioned from on-prem server management to mainly cloud work, my job happiness has skyrocketed. I haven't set foot in a data center in three years and I do not miss it one bit. Dealing with hardware failures, hardware vendors, confusing licensing, having to know SKUs, racking new cabinets, swapping hard drives, patching serv…
These stories almost always boil down to this fundamental conflict of what you want for a personal project vs a business. (though in this case yes, Troy Hunt's HIBP is larger than a lot of startup businesses) In a business setting, you want your service to stay up, at the cost of spike in costs if accidents or mistakes happen. In a personal project, you want there to be hard limit on cost, and your service to go down…
Azure (and I'm sure other cloud providers do) allow you to set email notifications for when your bill goes over a set amount so you can stop it before it happens. If you're using a cloud provider I'd highly recommend setting one of those up. In Azure it's under your Subscription and then Budgets
I truly believe they want you to use a lot of their resources on a consistent, long-term basis; they don't get long-term value from people having short, one-off anomalies, so budgets and monitoring are aligned with their customers - just not total cost of ownership calculations :)