Optimizing NATGW Costs by 90%

Optimizing NATGW Costs by 90%(newsletter.glenrosegroup.com)

2 points by encodedrose 2 years ago | 3 comments

mlhpdx 2 years ago |

A couple of points feedback on this:

- It’s important to note that even before a single byte is sent, simply provisioning NAT gateways incurred cost. That’s “reserved capacity”, and should be seen as an anti-pattern. A baseline cost of $600 per month for three availability zones in three regions is just ridiculous.

- Your example is OK, but it would be nice to have a call out of something running as a hobby project, or very early, where the costs in the first point are prohibitive. This stifles innovation.

- It gets worse. It seems impossible to make use of code deploy for instances running in private subnets without a NAT gateway. That’s dumb as rocks AWS.

Sorry, that was three points.

encodedrose 2 years ago | |

Thanks for the feedback -- agreed on the reserved capacity being an anti-pattern.

For the third point, what I've suggested in the past to push your artifacts into the region (since that's free) and then pull it down from S3. This lets you only incur S3 costs which tend to be cheaper then NAT data transfer costs (assuming you're using a VPC endpoint or equivalent).

encodedrose 2 years ago |

I recently published this article and it's been weird to see how divided the community it is on this.

It feels that half of my inbox is people yelling "we've been running this in production", the other half yelling "this is this worst thing to do in the cloud next to leaving S3 buckets open".

I'd love to know your sentiment if you have one as I didn't expect to hit such a nerve.