Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by slt2021 1004 days ago
I used s3 just as an example of a service with very good track record of availability for a very low cost - and perfectly reliable available service can be created with bash scripts, aws-cli and free-tier AWS account.

perfectly fine with using SQS, just it will have worse availability guarantees than S3 - people should understand tradeoffs

1 comments

I don't know but I think they might be suggesting that the answer to "don't need a huge complex system" is not "use someone else's huge complex system".
my understanding is that you should not roll your own expensive complex huge system, just use AWS S3 which provides eleven nines of availability at $22/tb/mo.

It is really hard to beat the cost/benefit ratio of S3.

a lot of mediocre engineers cannot swallow a pill that all their expensive work with hundreds of hours of overengineering could be replaced by a couple of AWS managed serverless services stitched together with a few mouse clicks or a single .yml file