Live data from Hacker News

AWS in 2025: Stuff you think you know that's now wrong

lastweekinaws.com

61–70 of 284 posts

Re: AWS in 2025: Stuff you think you know that's now wrong

#61

>VPC peering used to be annoying; now there are better options like Transit Gateway, VPC sharing between accounts, resource sharing between accounts, and Cloud WAN. TGW is... twice as expensive as vpc peering?

VPC sharing is the sleeper here. You can do cross account networking all in the same VPC and skip all the expensive stuff.

Re: AWS in 2025: Stuff you think you know that's now wrong

#63
post #61

>VPC peering used to be annoying; now there are better options like Transit Gateway, VPC sharing between accounts, resource sharing between accounts, and Cloud WAN. TGW is... twice as expensive as vpc peering?

VPC sharing is the sleeper here. You can do cross account networking all in the same VPC and skip all the expensive stuff.

as long as your VPCs aren't too big, yea.

Re: AWS in 2025: Stuff you think you know that's now wrong

#65
post #53
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just stick CloudFront in front of those buckets. You don't need to expose the bucket at all then and can point it at a canonical hostname in your DNS.

That’s definitely the “correct” way of doing things if you’re writing infra professionally. But I do also get that more casual users might prefer not to incur the additional costs nor complexity of having CloudFront in front. Though at that point, one could reasonably ask if S3 is the right choice for causal users.

It's actually incredibly cheap. I think our software distribution costs, in the account I run, are around $2.00 a month. That's pushing out several thousand MSI packages a day.

Re: AWS in 2025: Stuff you think you know that's now wrong

#66
post #53
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just stick CloudFront in front of those buckets. You don't need to expose the bucket at all then and can point it at a canonical hostname in your DNS.

That’s definitely the “correct” way of doing things if you’re writing infra professionally. But I do also get that more casual users might prefer not to incur the additional costs nor complexity of having CloudFront in front. Though at that point, one could reasonably ask if S3 is the right choice for causal users.

S3 + cloudfront is also incredibly popular so you can just find recipes for automating that in any technology you want, Terraform, ansible, plain bash scripts, Cloudformation (god forbid)

Re: AWS in 2025: Stuff you think you know that's now wrong

#67
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s definitely the “correct” way of doing things if you’re writing infra professionally. But I do also get that more casual users might prefer not to incur the additional costs nor complexity of having CloudFront in front. Though at that point, one could reasonably ask if S3 is the right choice for causal users.

S3 + cloudfront is also incredibly popular so you can just find recipes for automating that in any technology you want, Terraform, ansible, plain bash scripts, Cloudformation (god forbid)

Yeah holy crap why is cloud formation so terrible?

Re: AWS in 2025: Stuff you think you know that's now wrong

#68
I have a preempt-able workload for which I could use Spot instances or Savings Plans.

Does anyone have experience running Spot in 2025? If you were to start over, would you keep using Spot?

  - I observe with pricing that Spot is cheaper
  - I am running on three different architectures, which should limit Spot unavailability
  - I've been running about 50 Spot EC2 instances for a month without issue. I'm debating turning it on for many more instances

Re: AWS in 2025: Stuff you think you know that's now wrong

#69
post #60
post #25

> Glacier restores are also no longer painfully slow. Wouldn't this always depend on the length of the queue to access the robotic tape library? Once your tape is loaded it should move really quickly: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/ts4500-tape-library?topic=perfor...

> Once upon a time Glacier was its own service that had nothing to do with S3. If you look closely (hi, billing data!) you can see vestiges of how this used to be, before the S3 team absorbed it as a series of storage classes. Your assumption holds if they still use tape. But this paragraph hints at it not being tape anymore. The eternal battle between tape versus drive backup takes another turn.

I am also assuming that Amazon intends for the Deep Archive tier to be a profitable offering. At $0.00099/gb-month, I don't see how it could be anything other than tape.
Post reply on HN