←back to thread

461 points thunderbong | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.582s | source
Show context
modernerd ◴[] No.42134059[source]
"Billing alerts" are a joke, give us hard spend limits. Then offer a way to set those limits during onboarding.

Building a business on blank cheques and accidental spends is shady. It's also a large barrier to adoption. The more times devs see reports like, "I tried [random 20-minute tutorial] and woke up to a bill for my life's savings and luckily support waived the fee this one time but next time they're coming for my house", the less they'll want to explore your offerings.

replies(20): >>42134131 #>>42134150 #>>42134268 #>>42134271 #>>42134282 #>>42134287 #>>42134291 #>>42134375 #>>42134462 #>>42134469 #>>42134517 #>>42134613 #>>42134695 #>>42134828 #>>42135170 #>>42135288 #>>42135373 #>>42135557 #>>42135706 #>>42136718 #
slyall ◴[] No.42134613[source]
Dear Customer,

You have reached your Configured Maximum Monthly Spend Limit.

As per your settings we have removed all objects from S3, All RDS Databases, All Route53 Domains, all ESB volumes, all elastic IPs, All EC2 instances and all Snapshots.

Please update your spend limit before you recreate the above.

Yours, AWS

replies(5): >>42134673 #>>42134692 #>>42134739 #>>42135291 #>>42135359 #
paulgb ◴[] No.42134673[source]
A compromise solution to this could be to block creation of new resources if their monthly cost would exceed the monthly limit, unless the customer increases the limit.

It wouldn’t solve the problem for usage-based billing, but it would have solved the problem here.

replies(1): >>42134797 #
1. slyall ◴[] No.42134797[source]
All sorts of problems there. It means that you can't spin up a stack for an hour if the system calculates that leaving it online for a whole month would breach your limit. If the original author had a $100/month limit he wouldn't have been able to spin up the stack even once.

Also you have variable costs (like s3 traffic) that could put you over your limit half way through the month. Then how does AWS stop you breaching your limit?

On a more practical level I don't think AWS keeps tracks of bills on a minute-by-minute basis.

replies(3): >>42134877 #>>42135018 #>>42135409 #
2. paulgb ◴[] No.42134877[source]
> It means that you can't spin up a stack for an hour if the system calculates that leaving it online for a whole month would breach your limit.

Sort of related, another wishlist feature I have is a way to start an EC2 instance with a deadline up front, and have the machine automatically suspended or terminated if it exceeds the deadline. I have some programs that start an EC2 instance, do some work, and shut it down (e.g. AMI building), and I would sleep a tiny bit better at night if AWS could deadline the instance as a backstop in case my script unexpectedly died before it could.

> Also you have variable costs (like s3 traffic)

Yeah, that's what I mean by it wouldn't solve the problem of usage-based billing. There they could just cut you off, and I think that's the bargain that people who want hard caps are asking for (there is always a spend cap at which I'd assume something had gone horribly wrong and would rather not keep spending), but I agree that the lack of real-time billing data is probably what stops them there.

3. Aeolun ◴[] No.42135018[source]
They can shut it down where it makes sense and keep racking up charges for storage. It’s generally the compute that costs the most.
4. modernerd ◴[] No.42135409[source]
> If the original author had a $100/month limit he wouldn't have been able to spin up the stack even once.

Sounds perfect. Much better than having to negotiate your way out of a $1000 bill you don't expect to see.