My objections here are in terms of how this manifests in billing. Especially when you consider the highway robbery rates for internet egress.

▲

solatic 5 days ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	Dylan16807 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		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.