[banana_giraffe]

It feels like the performance and cost is really built around a very specific use case that basically boils down to "write logs and only read a tiny fraction of those logs".

And then, I've seen way too many people treat it like a traditional file system, and stick things on it that don't expect to find themselves on NFS, and wonder why they get corrupted files.

And, really, I tend to avoid the AWS services with "Burst Balances". It's painful to get a system running smoothly only to have it grind to a halt when you use it under load because some burst balance somewhere went to zero. Your mileage may vary, of course.

[josegonzalez]

EC2 SSDs have Burst Balances as well, and have since 2016: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-burst-balance-metric-fo...

[banana_giraffe]

Trust me, I know. We have alarming on all of our SSD burst balances after a few painful lessons.

At least those are mostly OK, since in our case at least, the really EBS hungry clients now have volumes of 1024 GB or more, so the burst balance issues don't apply.