←back to thread

461 points thunderbong | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
davedx ◴[] No.42133938[source]
This seems like a glaring bug in the scripts run by that `npx` command. The author is correct, the scripts should 100%:

- Choose the lowest cost resource (it's a tutorial!)

- Cleanup resources when the `delete` subscript is run

I don't think it's fair to expect developers to do paranoid sweeps of their entire AWS account looking for rogue resources after running something like this.

If a startup had this behavior would you shrug and say "this happens, you just have to be paranoid"? Why is AWS held to a different standard by some?

replies(7): >>42134019 #>>42134079 #>>42134081 #>>42134225 #>>42134243 #>>42134471 #>>42134516 #
reddalo ◴[] No.42134081[source]
> do paranoid sweeps of their entire AWS account looking for rogue resources

That's the thing that annoys me the most about AWS. There's no easy way to find out all the resources I'm currently paying for (or if there's a way, I couldn't find it).

Without an easy to understand overview, it feels like I don't have full control of my own account.

replies(8): >>42134089 #>>42134104 #>>42134146 #>>42134222 #>>42134354 #>>42134455 #>>42134772 #>>42134973 #
calgoo ◴[] No.42134146[source]
You can set up daily or hourly cost and usage reports on the account. I built a finops function based on it, feeding the data into a Postgres db. Make sure to select incremental updates, if not you’ll en up paying for tb of s3 storage.
replies(3): >>42134213 #>>42134242 #>>42135742 #
Aeolun ◴[] No.42134242[source]
TB of S3 storage is surprisingly inexpensive though. Especially compared to everything else AWS.
replies(1): >>42143703 #
1. ac29 ◴[] No.42143703[source]
$283/TB-year doesnt strike me as inexpensive. And that price does not include any data transfer.