> I too can spin up hundreds of subnets for nothing.
Really? In completely different physical locations with inter-region routing and NAT gateways for each region that route into a redundant load balancer? Then you're right and don't need AWS any more. However, I'd suspect your costs would not be very affordable either.
> Lets talk about what it costs you put data back out onto the net, or into a different region.
If you're seriously trying to compare your residential internet connection with something like this I'm not going to go there..
I'm saying the things that are hard to do yourself aren't fucking cheap in the cloud either.
My counter point (and the one you keep dodging) is that the things that are EASY to do yourself aren't fucking cheap in the cloud, and they scale out just fine for the vast majority of non-Saas businesses.
I realize, but I still disagree with one of your points:
> My counter point (and the one you keep dodging) is that the things that are EASY to do yourself aren't fucking cheap in the cloud, and they scale out just fine for the vast majority of non-Saas businesses.
And I don't even disagree with it for its inherent correctness, but because nobody ever said you absolutely have AWS for something that doesn't need it. Most users here tend to discard cloud platforms for even the most obvious and suitable use-cases, and keep on iterating how their single dedicated server can do all of it. I'm also not a big fan of telling someone they don't need to use AWS if it's clearly a side hobby project because that is how we all learned.. by playing with cool modern technology for fun.
The real issue is super simple.. AWS just needs a hard cap functionality so stuff like this can't happen.
> I'm also not a big fan of telling someone they don't need to use AWS if it's clearly a side hobby project because that is how we all learned.. by playing with cool modern technology for fun.
I guess I don't really see the appeal of putting a hobby project into a space where a simple mistake can literally cost you thousands of dollars, with very little recourse.
I get to play with the vast majority of the fun tech - I just choose to do it on a k8s cluster I own, with extremely predictable costs, and frankly - more scaling capacity than I think most businesses need.
> Most users here tend to discard cloud platforms for even the most obvious and suitable use-cases, and keep on iterating how their single dedicated server can do all of it.
And this isn't really my stance - I'm absolutely not advocating for a single dedicated server (fuck - even my hobby instance is HA, 3 machines with a network lb, on a 5 hour UPS, with a redundant network. I personally don't care as much about the redundant network, but comcast provides it free to business customers in my area anyways through 5g equipment).
But I do think most (and I mean 75%+) businesses can spend 10k on a single server rack and go for literal years without problems.
If your business is not selling software as a service - don't buy into the bullshit marketing.
Even if your business is selling software as a service, think about it first. Small businesses tend to get sweetheart deals on costs in AWS, GCP, and Azure because their usage costs for those companies amortizes out to roughly zero, and because they know damn well that they'll end up paying through the nose if they make it to mid-size (or even just screw up once or twice - two fuck ups like the one here and you'd have bought yourself a decent server rack!)
Really? In completely different physical locations with inter-region routing and NAT gateways for each region that route into a redundant load balancer? Then you're right and don't need AWS any more. However, I'd suspect your costs would not be very affordable either.
> Lets talk about what it costs you put data back out onto the net, or into a different region.
If you're seriously trying to compare your residential internet connection with something like this I'm not going to go there..
> Then lets compare long term storage costs.
Same logic applies.