My First AWS “Free Tier” Hosting Bill Was $990 • Hacker News Board

Re: My First AWS “Free Tier” Hosting Bill Was $990

#61

Post by moksly » Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

raxxorrax wrote: post #51

moksly wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Credentials on github is actually a fairly common cause for GDPR breach, not as common as people using auto-complete in their e-mail system, but it’s up there. So you’re not as alone as you think, and these aren’t from people trying to learn something, it’s from big enterprise IT organisations.

Auto-completing e-mail adresses is a GDPR violation? Because you could iterate them and see all the contacts? Seriously?

No, but sending all that personal information to the wrong person is, and it’s the most common GDPR violation in my country.

Re: My First AWS “Free Tier” Hosting Bill Was $990

#62

Post by blagie » Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 12:33 AM UTC

mwnivek wrote: post #18

blagie wrote: post #3

TL;DR: Misleading title. Amazon service came through. * Author clicked through Amazon UI/UX, and ended up with a huge bill. * The UI/UX was confusing and poorly designed -- at no point was he shown he'd pay anything, let alone a lot. * He was refunded the money AND given credits to make up for the hassle. This is one of my key frustrations with Amazon. (1) I'd like services like RDS or similar on a pay-as-you-go fash…

Does Aurora Serverless meet your desired criteria, or are you looking for something else? https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/serverless/

Not quite. Aurora serverless spins up machines for requests and spins them down. If I were paying just for storage and IOs, it'd be perfect. But I'm paying for ACU-hours. There is a 10 minute minimum charge, and an unknown ramp-up time if there are no ACUs spun up.

If I have a web app which is accessed once every 10 minutes (0.002 requests per second), I'll be paying for a full AWS machine. It should be a shared, scalable resource and abstraction.

Re: My First AWS “Free Tier” Hosting Bill Was $990

#63

Post by blagie » Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 12:37 AM UTC

jonfw wrote: post #23

blagie wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it sounds a bit odd, but in most business settings, I'd rather be paying double and have service like this than be paying half without that customer service. Generous policies like these avoid headaches, and headaches are much more expensive than machines.

With a model like this- you're only getting your money's worth while you're regularly making mistakes. If everything is going smoothly, you're just paying double for no reason. I dislike when the value proposition gets muddied like this.

I'm paying double for peace-of-mind.

Think of it in terms of expected costs.

* In one case, I pay $500 / month.

* In the other case, I pay $250 per month, and have a 25% chance of having a workplace conflict. A workplace conflict can cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Which is cheaper?