Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> How does that work for stateful services like S3? Should they just delete the data?

Intuitively, if you're capping out your S3 storage, the hard cutoff should look like "don't allow me to store any additional data".

If you're capping out retrieval, then "don't serve the data any more".



Yes for retrieval. Just don't serve it.

But if the data is stored, the clock keeps ticking until you delete it. If I have a TB of data stored, and I hit my $1K (or whatever limit) on April 15, the only way that I don't get hit with a >$1K bill for the month is if AWS deletes anything I have stored on the service. (Or at least holds it hostage until I pay up for the overage.)


You can easily calculate what the bill will be at the end of the month if no new data is stored or deleted between now and then. So if you need a hard cutoff for storage, use that.

There's enough room there for workflows where I know I'm going to delete data later that allowing configuration would be valuable. (Maybe I can set a timed expiration at the moment of storage, instead of having to store first and separately delete later? That would keep end-of-month predictions accurate.) But it isn't difficult to set the hard cutoff.


So then your AWS/Azure service is turned off April 2 because you had some temporary spike in uploads?

What you're asking for is not possible and will have unintended consequences. Guaranteed not to meet every customer's expectation of how it works.


> So then your AWS/Azure service is turned off April 2 because you had some temporary spike in uploads?

Yes, that's the idea. Compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22719015

>> My pet project cannot involve the risk of possibly costing me thousands or more because I made a mistake or it got super popular over night. I'd rather my site just 503.

> What you're asking for is not possible

How so?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: