It shouldnt mean shutting down all your services, it should mean not letting you provision new ones and limiting the scope of what you can continue doing.

▲

michaelt 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If I budget enough to store 1TB of data for 1 month, then on the first day of the month I store 2TB of data - what should the behaviour be after 15 days?

▲

Epskampie 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Read/write access should be frozen, data should be saved for 1 month so you have time to react to warning emails. If you didn't upgrade in that time, it should be deleted.

▲

glenpierce 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nuke the data. It’s gone forever if you didn’t back it up elsewhere. This should be a meaningful risk mitigation that I can employ to avoid having a catastrophic financial disaster.

This isn’t a limit I’m setting at some percentage above expected costs, it’s: “I don’t want to take out a HELOC if something goes wrong”

	▲	michaelt 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Unfortunately, a lot of people keep their backups in the same cloud account as their primary data. Thinking that multiple copies and multiple availability zones are sufficient. For these users, the article’s €54k bill would be replaced with their business data getting wiped out.

▲

MagicMoonlight 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And just shut down the service which is surging.

If you have a lambda set up that normally runs a hundred times a day, and suddenly it tries to spin up 10 million instances, it should block that unless you specifically enable it.

▲

Rekindle8090 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You know that's not how the cloud works. If you're build by the hour for compute and that compute is powering a server, the only way to stop that is by shutting off the compute, breaking the server.

	▲	glenpierce 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I would love to have a “if the bill for this hobby project becomes a threat to my ability to pay my mortgage, nuke it.” If I cared about the data enough. I’d have backed it up.