Comment by hnlmorg

Comment by hnlmorg 5 days ago

32 replies

That’s definitely the “correct” way of doing things if you’re writing infra professionally. But I do also get that more casual users might prefer not to incur the additional costs nor complexity of having CloudFront in front. Though at that point, one could reasonably ask if S3 is the right choice for causal users.

gchamonlive 5 days ago

S3 + cloudfront is also incredibly popular so you can just find recipes for automating that in any technology you want, Terraform, ansible, plain bash scripts, Cloudformation (god forbid)

  • gigatexal 5 days ago

    Yeah holy crap why is cloud formation so terrible?

    • gchamonlive 5 days ago

      It's designed to be a declarative DSL, but then you have to do all sorts of filters and maps in any group of resources and suddenly you are programming in yaml with both hands tied behind your back

      • gigatexal 5 days ago

        Yeah it’s just terrible. If Amazon knew what was good they’d just replace it with almost anything else. Heck just got all in on terraform and call it a day.

    • SteveNuts 5 days ago

      Last time I tried to use CF, the third party IAC tools were faster to release new features than the functionality of CF itself. (Like Terraform would support some S3 bucket feature when creating a bucket, but CF did not).

      I'm not sure if that's changed recently, I've stopped using it.

      • tkjef 4 days ago

        I have been on the terraform side for 7 years-ish.

        eksctl just really impressed me with its eks management, specifically managed node groups & cluster add-ons, over terraform.

        that uses cloudformation under the hood. so i gave it a try, and it’s awesome. combine with github actions and you have your IAC automation.

        nice web interface for others to check stacks status, events for debugging and associated resources that were created.

        oh, ever destroy some legacy complex (or not that complex) aws shit in terraform? it’s not going to be smooth. site to site connections, network interfaces, subnets, peering connections, associated resources… oh, my.

        so far cloudformation has been good at destroying, but i haven’t tested that with massive legacy infra yet.

        but i am happily converted tf>cf.

        and will happily use both alongside each other as needed.

    • dragonwriter 5 days ago

      Because its an old early IaC language, but it works and lots depends on it, so instead of dumping or retooling it, AWS keeps it around as a compilation target, while pushing other solutions (years ago, the SAM transform on top of it, more recently CDK) as the main thing for people to actually use directly.

    • baby_souffle 5 days ago

      > Yeah holy crap why is cloud formation so terrible?

      I can't confirm it, but I suspect that it was always meant to be a sales tool.

      Every AWS announcement blog has a "just copy this JSON blob, and paste it $here to get your own copy of the toy demo we used to demonstrate in this announcement blog" vibe to it.

damieng 5 days ago

I'd argue putting CloudFront on top of S3 is less complex than getting the permissions and static sharing setup right on S3 itself.

  • hnlmorg 4 days ago

    I do get where you're coming from, but I don't agree. With the CF+S3 combo you now need to choose which sharing mode to work with S3 (there are several different ways you can link CF to S3). Then you have the wider configuration of CF to manage too. And that's before you account for any caching issues you might run into when debugging your site.

    If you know what you're doing, as it sounds like you and I do, then all of this is very easy to get set up (but then aren't most things easy when you already know how? hehe). However we are talking about people who aren't comfortable with vanilla S3, so throwing another service into the mix isn't going to make things easier for them.

crinkly 5 days ago

It's actually incredibly cheap. I think our software distribution costs, in the account I run, are around $2.00 a month. That's pushing out several thousand MSI packages a day.

  • hnlmorg 4 days ago

    S3 is actually quite expensive compared to the competition for both storage costs and egress costs. At a previous start-up, we had terrabytes of data on S3 and it was our second largest cost (after GPUs) and by some margin.

    For small scale stuff, S3s storage and egress charges are unlikely to be impactful. But it doesn’t mean they’re cheap relative to the competition.

    There are also ways you can reduce S3 costs, but then you're trading the costs received from AWS with the costs of hiring competent DevOps. Either way, you pay.

tayo42 5 days ago

>S3 is the right choice for causal users.

It's so simple for storing and serving a static website.

Are there good and cheap alternatives?

  • MaKey 5 days ago

    Yeah, your classic web hoster. Just today I uploaded a static website to one via FTP.

    • fodkodrasz 5 days ago

      Really? If I remember correctly: My Static website served from S3 + CF + R53 by about 0.67$ / mo, 0.5 being R53 from that, 0.16 being CF, S3 being 0.01 for my page.

      BTW: Is GitHub Page still free for custom domains? (I don't know the EULA)

      • daydream 5 days ago

        GitHub Pages are still free but commercial websites are forbidden.