Comment by bilalq
My objections here are in terms of how this manifests in billing. Especially when you consider the highway robbery rates for internet egress.
My objections here are in terms of how this manifests in billing. Especially when you consider the highway robbery rates for internet egress.
It being low level is not an excuse for systems that lead people down the wrong path.
And the traffic never even reaches the public internet. There's a mismatch between what the billing is supposedly for and what it's actually applied to.
> do you expect AWS to show you different meters for billed and not-billed traffic, but performance still depends on the sum total of the traffic (S3 and Internet egress) passing through it?
Yes.
> How is that not confusing?
That's how network ports work. They only go so fast, and you can be charged based on destination. I don't see the issue.
> It's also besides the point that not all NAT gateways are used for Internet egress
Okay, if two NAT gateways talk to each other it also should not have egress fees.
> some kind of implicit built-in S3 gateway violates assumptions
So don't do that. Checking if the traffic will leave the datacenter doesn't need such a thing.
Again, you are dealing with low-level primitives. You can provision an EC2 VM with multiple GPUs at high cost and use it to host nginx. That is not a correct configuration. There are much cheaper ways available to you. It's ridiculous to imply that AWS shouldn't send you a higher bill because you didn't use the GPUs or that AWS shouldn't offer instances with GPUs because they are more expensive. You, the user, are responsible for building a correct configuration with the low-level primitives that have been made available to you! If it's too much then feel free to move up the stack and host your workloads on a PaaS instead.