←back to thread

461 points thunderbong | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dkersten ◴[] No.42134266[source]
I know it’s minor in comparison, but I will never use AWS again after running up a $100 bill trying to get an app deployed to ECS. There was an error (on my side) preventing the service from starting up, but cloud waatch only had logs about 20% of the time, so I had to redeploy five times just to get some logs, make changes, redeploy five more times, etc. They charged me for every single failed deploy.

After about two days of struggling and a $100 bill, I said fuck it, deleted my account and deployed to DigitalOcean’s app platform instead, where it also failed to deploy (the error was with my app), but I had logs, every time. I fixed it in and had it running in under ten minutes, total bill was a few cents.

I swore that day that I would never again use AWS for anything when given a choice, and would never recommend it.

replies(2): >>42134378 #>>42134527 #
phatfish ◴[] No.42134378[source]
I've only used Azure and it looks like ECS is equivelent to Azure Container Apps. I found their consumption model to be very cheap for doing dev/test. Not sure what it is like for larger workloads.

Charing per deployment sounds crazy though.

replies(2): >>42134592 #>>42135824 #
1. dkersten ◴[] No.42134592[source]
> Charging per deployment sounds crazy though.

I think technically I was just being charged for the container host machine, but while each individual deploy only lasted a minute or so, I was being charged the minimum each time. And each new deploy started a new host machine. Something like that anyway, it was a few years ago, so I don't remember the specifics.

So I can understand why, but it doesn't change that if their logging hadn't been so flaky, I should have been able to fix the issue in minutes with minimal cost, like I did on Digital Ocean. Besides, the $100 they charged me doesn't include the much more expensive two days I wasted on it.