←back to thread

DigitalOcean App Platform

(pages.news.digitalocean.com)
646 points digianarchist | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
onion2k ◴[] No.24698869[source]
Like all DigitalOcean products, the App Platform provides predictable, easy-to-understand pricing that allows you to control costs to prevent surprise bills.

I can't see any features listed that enable me to control costs to prevent surprise bills. If a site got submitted to HN and hugged to not-to-death-because-it-autoscales then I'd wake up to a bunch of alerts and massive outbound bandwidth bill. I don't want that. I want something that stops that happening.

replies(3): >>24698927 #>>24700146 #>>24700352 #
phildougherty ◴[] No.24698927[source]
Thanks for the feedback! Autoscaling is not yet supported on the platform (but is coming soon). Before autoscaling lands as a feature, insights based alerting will also land. You'll be able to setup alerts for scaling events, bandwidth, cpu, memory, and more that can be sent via email or slack.
replies(4): >>24699014 #>>24699023 #>>24699668 #>>24718319 #
onion2k ◴[] No.24699014[source]
My point is that alerts aren't really enough. If I'm asleep or on a plane or something then it could be many hours before I even see an alert, by which time it's probably too late. I'd prefer to be able to set up rules beforehand that prevent an unforeseen bill.

If the App Platform doesn't have that feature, and it isn't planned, that's OK but I'd argue that isn't really preventing a surprise bill as the marketing site claims. A warning isn't quite the same as prevention.

replies(2): >>24699078 #>>24699110 #
phildougherty ◴[] No.24699110[source]
Sorry, I think I misunderstood what you were saying there. Could you clarify a bit more about what kind of functionality you'd prefer we support in the scenario you described? A large influx of traffic hits your application while you are unavailable to handle it. If you do not have autoscaling enabled, your application performance could suffer, if you do have it enabled your bill could grow out of bounds. We do plan to let you set min and max bounds for autoscaling once it is implemented. Thanks for your help!
replies(3): >>24699221 #>>24699275 #>>24699681 #
onion2k ◴[] No.24699221[source]
We do plan to let you set min and max bounds for autoscaling once it is implemented.

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about, but for money rather than computing resources or bandwidth. I'd like a feature that where the requirement is effectively "Fall back to a serving sorry-I'm-poor.html instead of the app if the total monthly bill has exceeded $xxx". For a side project I'm more interested in not paying an unexpected bill than getting traffic.

replies(2): >>24699292 #>>24704108 #
mrkurt ◴[] No.24699292[source]
For what it's worth, we (Fly.io) have this feature, and announced it as part of our launch post on HN. But literally no one has asked us to enable it on their apps. So we never made it self service.

I think for most companies, it's better to set the expectation that the service costs money, bursts will cost more money, and then forgive outlier charges once or twice. It's tremendously difficult to compete against the AWS's of the world, putting work into features specifically to minimize how much people spend seems like a good way to fail a company.

replies(5): >>24699883 #>>24699884 #>>24700298 #>>24700511 #>>24703935 #
the_duke ◴[] No.24699883{6}[source]
I'd argue that many users that end up with surprise bills are either inexperienced or are deploying something small without giving it much thought.

In those cases, the users will either not know or not think about such expense limits.

The solution is to set relatively strict limits by default and even occasionally warn users about unused/underutilized resources.

But as you said: such features are bad for the bottom line .

And I can appreciate the enormous difficulty of competing with the big 3.

replies(1): >>24701577 #
1. mrkurt ◴[] No.24701577{7}[source]
I think such features create really negative surprises too. People expect their app or service to keep working at almost any scale. Disabling an app that hits a threshold sounds terrible, because most peoples' apps _benefit_ from more (legit) activity and they are delighted to pay the extra fees if things just continue to work.

For people who are inexperienced or don't give it much thought, just waiving their overage fees creates a really nice experience. We've had multiple instances of people asking why their bill is so high and being relieved/excited when we explained it and made it go away. People love when we're responsive to problems.