Re:A Surprise AWS Bill
by dathinab on Sunday July 26, 2020 @08:24PM
(#23961225)
> herwise.. should AWS disable your website because you got posted on hacker news and now have a bill over your $10 limit?
YES!!!!, if you ask them to do so.
$10 is a arbitrary small amount, but what if it's a web app and we are now speaking about $1000? And tbh. for many especially young people just $100 alone is much more then they can afford.
Or better have also a option for a dynamic hard limit based on a multiplier compared to normal traffic.
Even besides private persons there is a good reason to have a hard limit for a lot of businesses (or parts of them). Especially if it's on non-essential things people don't rely on which have a limited budged. (Like a lot of things provided for marketing only.)
Heck even for payed service providers a hard limit can make sense given that it's high enough, as a form of last defense against intentional or accidental DOS like situations (I mean in times of auto-scaling some DOS situations became cost explosion situations instead).
The problem with billing alerts is that (assuming they work and get delivered in time and are set to an sensible value):
- You need to read them in time.
- You need to be able to react to them in time.
Both NOT trivial in for private persons and also small companies which just got started (or do mismanagement or are to tight on budged).
Like what happens if you get it when you are on a party? In the cinema? Asleep? In the hospital? On holiday currently outside of reception?
Somehow the idea that you will react in just a view minutes and then fix the problem, too (or shut the service down). Is a bit to optimistic.
Through yes in the given case he might have ended up with "just" a view $ in the best case or ~600 or so in the worst case. Still I think he would have been happy with service discontinuing once the price reached a view hounded $ (let's just arbitrary say 250).
YES!!!!, if you ask them to do so.
$10 is a arbitrary small amount, but what if it's a web app and we are now speaking about $1000? And tbh. for many especially young people just $100 alone is much more then they can afford.
Or better have also a option for a dynamic hard limit based on a multiplier compared to normal traffic.
Even besides private persons there is a good reason to have a hard limit for a lot of businesses (or parts of them). Especially if it's on non-essential things people don't rely on which have a limited budged. (Like a lot of things provided for marketing only.)
Heck even for payed service providers a hard limit can make sense given that it's high enough, as a form of last defense against intentional or accidental DOS like situations (I mean in times of auto-scaling some DOS situations became cost explosion situations instead).
The problem with billing alerts is that (assuming they work and get delivered in time and are set to an sensible value):
- You need to read them in time.
- You need to be able to react to them in time.
Both NOT trivial in for private persons and also small companies which just got started (or do mismanagement or are to tight on budged).
Like what happens if you get it when you are on a party? In the cinema? Asleep? In the hospital? On holiday currently outside of reception?
Somehow the idea that you will react in just a view minutes and then fix the problem, too (or shut the service down). Is a bit to optimistic.
Through yes in the given case he might have ended up with "just" a view $ in the best case or ~600 or so in the worst case. Still I think he would have been happy with service discontinuing once the price reached a view hounded $ (let's just arbitrary say 250).