undefined | Better HN

0 pointsakerl_9y ago0 comments

I don't think that actually holds up. There are certainly some people that want "ironclad guarantees", but the reality of cost here is pretty close: you pay $5/mo max for the server. The things that can cost more are either overages on bandwidth/dns (and here, 1TB of bandwidth on the low end is included, eliminating a lot of the flux from EC2), or things you choose to initiate, like snapshots.

It feels like the larger thing they're trying to solve, that I expect actually stops the majority of people who don't choose AWS, is the complexity around setting up VPCs/SecurityGroups/Subnets/etc.

Most providers in the VPS space already charge overages for bandwidth, and most of them don't support suspending the account vs just billing you.

0 comments

ffk9y ago

I personally don't use AWS for personal projects because of the lack of a cap. I would rather see my system suspended rather than continue to pay beyond my budget.

JustSomeNobody9y ago

This. I got excited about this until I came to HN and started reading the comments. I _have_ to have a cap. I don't want to do something stupid that puts me on the hook for $$$.

MustardTiger9y ago

So who are you using then? I don't see anyone that has a cap. Everyone charges you if you go over your allotted bandwidth.

1 more reply

radva429y ago

I agree.

I am currently using Linode, but would move to AWS if they offer a cap. 2 years ago I signed up for the free AWS and forgot about it (didn't use it at all). Ended up costing ~60$ before I found out and since then I've avoided it.

akerl_OP9y ago

Linode has bandwidth overages, just like LightSail, so I don't see how this compares. You pay more money if your Linode surpasses the quota.

ryanSrich9y ago

Exactly. I have alerting setup on DO that notifies if I need to address scaling issues. Let me make the decision for smaller projects. 100%.

TheDong9y ago

AWS's pricing and usage related billing is orders of magnitude better than DO.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/awsaccountbilling/latest/aboutv2...

ghaff9y ago

Exactly. There's certainly a market for VPSs and other cloud services that have a hard cost cap. AWS has apparently decided that they're fine with not competing for that slice of the business.

Setting cost caps on more complex applications that use a lot of different AWS services would get complex in a hurry and could easily have unintended effects.

As someone else wrote, I view this as primarily a simple VPS for people who are already using AWS for other things. I suspect that AWS isn't really interested in being a VPS-only provider for the most price-sensitive customers.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse