Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links


Shells Virtual Desktop
BMail.ag - Secure Email Service
Server.net
CPLicense.net
VPS Server
Buy VPN
Vultr
VMs for AI
HostDare
HostDare
ReliableSite White-Label Dedicated Hosting for Resellers
25% Recurring Discount on NVMe VPS
InterServer VPS
BMail.ag - Secure Email Service
Best VPN
High-Performance Bare Metal Server Solutions
Karvl.com
Server Mania Cloud Hosting
DataWagon Hosting
AlphaVPS Hosting
Evoxt.com
Clouvider
VPS Hosting with NVMe
Residential IPs in the US & 4G Mobile Proxies in EU & US with Unlimited Bandwidth
ReliableSite White-Label Dedicated Hosting for Resellers
Rabisu - Hosting Solutions
CloudLinux
Shells Virtual Desktop

Categories

In this Discussion

Home › General
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

AWS: Inaccurate Estimated Billing Data – $1.7 billion

whynotlearnwhynotlearn Member
in General

Someone on reddit and hackernews shared this.

what they said on hackernews:

URL already posted: https://health.aws.amazon.com/health/status

I've got an estimated bill for $1.7 BILLION over this month. Normal usage is < $5.

Obvs have created an urgent AWS support ticket. Anyone else seeing something like this?

Update: Reddit link: https://www.reddit.com/r/aws/comments/1uyuaw7/help_my_bill_s...

what they said on reddit:

HELP! My bill skyrocketed from around 5 cents per month to 2.5 billion USD!!!!

As per title, today I received a bunch of billing alerts in my email because I went over my max threshold of 100 usd.

AWS says I owe them about 2.5 billion dollars so far and it's only the 17th of the month. I have only one s3 bucket that hasn't been touched since 2023 and is not public, and I am not even using ecr at all, I have no registry on any region that I am aware of. I tried opening a support ticket but nothing so far.

What should I do? Is there any way to escalate this urgently?

What do you guys think of the whole situation? Its a good starting plot to a horror story in my opinion.

Comments

  • MainfrezzerMainfrezzer Member

    one does not simply use aws

    Thanked by 13whynotlearn stable_genius Nekopara khalequzzaman zGato COLBYLICIOUS xms mrerenk JohnnySac OhJohn Nadwey nghialele forest
  • whynotlearnwhynotlearn Member

    @Mainfrezzer said:
    one does not simply use aws

    or azure or gcp

    GCP has problems where a billion dollar company (Railway) got their accounts banned somehow and they have just as many horror stories.

    And Azure is well.... Azure. The only way that it makes sense perhaps is by the microsoft package in corporate perhaps but I have heard some really insane stories regarding Azure as well.

    Thanked by 1forest
  • emghemgh Member, Megathread Squad

    let after the 328th company involucrated overnight: ALL IS FINE AND REMEMBER THAT LARGE COMPANIES ARE NOT BETTER, A COMPANY BEING LARGE MEANS NOTHING

    let when aws has one bug: I WOULD NEVER EVER USE AWS THIS IS ABSURD AND CAN NOT BE TOLERATED

    Thanked by 4LEBUserJoe TimboJones VTCuong nghialele
  • whynotlearnwhynotlearn Member

    @emgh said:
    let after the 328th company involucrated overnight: ALL IS FINE AND REMEMBER THAT LARGE COMPANIES ARE NOT BETTER, A COMPANY BEING LARGE MEANS NOTHING

    let when aws has one bug: I WOULD NEVER EVER USE AWS THIS IS ABSURD AND CAN NOT BE TOLERATED

    To be honest, you are paying a premium for AWS to not have bugs.

    Breaking news: a trillion dollar company has more scrutiny than a LET host.

  • emghemgh Member, Megathread Squad

    @whynotlearn said:

    @emgh said:
    let after the 328th company involucrated overnight: ALL IS FINE AND REMEMBER THAT LARGE COMPANIES ARE NOT BETTER, A COMPANY BEING LARGE MEANS NOTHING

    let when aws has one bug: I WOULD NEVER EVER USE AWS THIS IS ABSURD AND CAN NOT BE TOLERATED

    To be honest, you are paying a premium for AWS to not have bugs.

    please show me a single quote of any large AWS client who has ever said that they're using AWS due to there being 0 bugs ever

    Thanked by 2stable_genius TimboJones
  • stable_geniusstable_genius Member
    edited July 17

    Signing highly asymmetric deals is a gamble, the stakes are inherently very unbalanced, the house always wins.

    That guy gambled and lost, should have known better.

    Thanked by 1forest
  • whynotlearnwhynotlearn Member
    edited July 17

    @emgh said:

    @whynotlearn said:

    @emgh said:
    let after the 328th company involucrated overnight: ALL IS FINE AND REMEMBER THAT LARGE COMPANIES ARE NOT BETTER, A COMPANY BEING LARGE MEANS NOTHING

    let when aws has one bug: I WOULD NEVER EVER USE AWS THIS IS ABSURD AND CAN NOT BE TOLERATED

    To be honest, you are paying a premium for AWS to not have bugs.

    please show me a single quote of any large AWS client who has ever said that they're using AWS due to there being 0 bugs ever

    I am not saying 0 bugs like in insensitive bugs but rather critical bugs.

    yes people are using AWS because they don't want critical bugs in billing or uptime or whatever because they think that AWS has figured it out after years of their existence.

    There is a difference between a small bug and a rather large bug that is in billing.

    If AWS is able to charge an eggregious premium over other providers. There are things that AWS has which others dont. People know AWS and trust it more than everything else. Businesses know about AWS and trust it more, and the reason that they trust AWS is because large companies use it so surely it must be good, reliable in everything whether in terms of uptime, account issues/customer support, billing etc. so when billing has a issue so big, yes it puts some questions in place.

  • stable_geniusstable_genius Member
    edited July 17

    @whynotlearn said:
    If AWS is able to charge an eggregious premium over other providers. There are things that AWS has which others dont. People know AWS and trust it more than everything else. Businesses know about AWS and trust it more, and the reason that they trust AWS is because large companies use it so surely it must be good, reliable in everything whether in terms of uptime, account issues/customer support, billing etc. so when billing has a issue so big, yes it puts some questions in place.

    No bugs huh?

    How about a..

    1.7 BILLION DOLLA BUG

    Is that enough of a bug for ya?

    Or is that a FEATURE, not a bug?

    Thanked by 2whynotlearn forest
  • rpqurpqu Member
    edited July 17

    LOL LMAO
    must be using bucket on cursed zones

    Thanked by 2whynotlearn COLBYLICIOUS
  • tentortentor Member, Host Rep

    Did they attempt to charge this sum from a credit card? Would be a funny notification from the bank

    Thanked by 9Mainfrezzer rpqu whynotlearn khalequzzaman zGato COLBYLICIOUS xms NotFoundException forest
  • NekoparaNekopara Member

    good luck paying that back :D

  • dbadudedbadude Member

    nice chicken you should have had for that money!

  • MainfrezzerMainfrezzer Member

    @emgh said:
    let after the 328th company involucrated overnight: ALL IS FINE AND REMEMBER THAT LARGE COMPANIES ARE NOT BETTER, A COMPANY BEING LARGE MEANS NOTHING

    let when aws has one bug: I WOULD NEVER EVER USE AWS THIS IS ABSURD AND CAN NOT BE TOLERATED

    Aws has a history of billing issues and if people didn't go public and got the virality with it, I doubt they would have been resolved.

    I cannot fathom why you ever would pick them with the many options you have

    Thanked by 1OhJohn
  • dbadudedbadude Member

    Their dashboard is made to make mistakes, similar like those daytrading dashboards.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    Ooopsie

  • TimboJonesTimboJones Member

    @Mainfrezzer said:
    one does not simply use aws

    The selection of security first LET providers with petabytes of storage in multiple zones is non existent.

    But I agree "one" person won't get the same benefit as "one" Fortune 500.

    Also, was on a Support call the other week to solve an issue our IT and consultant couldn't figure out in multiple hour long sessions. Our AWS support missus understood the problem, and diagnosed the issue in like 10 minutes (it was our ITs fault, but I kind of knew that given her stance from the start it wasn't her fault)

    Thanked by 1emgh
  • MallocVoidstarMallocVoidstar Member

    @emgh said:
    let after the 328th company involucrated overnight: ALL IS FINE AND REMEMBER THAT LARGE COMPANIES ARE NOT BETTER, A COMPANY BEING LARGE MEANS NOTHING

    let when aws has one bug: I WOULD NEVER EVER USE AWS THIS IS ABSURD AND CAN NOT BE TOLERATED

    I don't use AWS because when I pay [insert shithost here] $50 up front they get $50, if I start using AWS they might one day decide to take $5000.

  • stable_geniusstable_genius Member

    @TimboJones said:

    @Mainfrezzer said:
    one does not simply use aws

    The selection of security first LET providers with petabytes of storage in multiple zones is non existent.

    But I agree "one" person won't get the same benefit as "one" Fortune 500.

    Also, was on a Support call the other week to solve an issue our IT and consultant couldn't figure out in multiple hour long sessions. Our AWS support missus understood the problem, and diagnosed the issue in like 10 minutes (it was our ITs fault, but I kind of knew that given her stance from the start it wasn't her fault)

    Fascinating!

  • emghemgh Member, Megathread Squad
    edited July 17

    @Mainfrezzer said:

    @emgh said:
    let after the 328th company involucrated overnight: ALL IS FINE AND REMEMBER THAT LARGE COMPANIES ARE NOT BETTER, A COMPANY BEING LARGE MEANS NOTHING

    let when aws has one bug: I WOULD NEVER EVER USE AWS THIS IS ABSURD AND CAN NOT BE TOLERATED

    Aws has a history of billing issues and if people didn't go public and got the virality with it, I doubt they would have been resolved.

    I cannot fathom why you ever would pick them with the many options you have

    ok name many better options with support for complience mode on s3 with physical data being stored in sweden

    rhetorical question, you can't, and if you can, they'll be other similar providers just like AWS, I'm thinking Azure probably supports this and they have a datacenter in sweden, but you won't see host-c or skhron support this, it's completely different markets for completely different audiences

    regulatory reasons make it completely uninteresting to even compare

  • TimboJonesTimboJones Member

    The engineers and devs that often use a lot of AWS infrastructure are probably paid $250k-$500k/year. The monthly aws bill is not as large (in comparison) you'd think.

  • whynotlearnwhynotlearn Member
    edited July 17

    @emgh said:

    @Mainfrezzer said:

    @emgh said:
    let after the 328th company involucrated overnight: ALL IS FINE AND REMEMBER THAT LARGE COMPANIES ARE NOT BETTER, A COMPANY BEING LARGE MEANS NOTHING

    let when aws has one bug: I WOULD NEVER EVER USE AWS THIS IS ABSURD AND CAN NOT BE TOLERATED

    Aws has a history of billing issues and if people didn't go public and got the virality with it, I doubt they would have been resolved.

    I cannot fathom why you ever would pick them with the many options you have

    ok name many better options with support for complience mode on s3 with physical data being stored in sweden

    rhetorical question, you can't, and if you can, they'll be other similar providers just like AWS, I'm thinking Azure probably supports this and they have a datacenter in sweden, but you won't see host-c or skhron support this, it's completely different markets for completely different audiences

    regulatory reasons make it completely uninteresting to even compare

    have you checked out https://hexabyte.se ?, they provide S3 storage at comparatively cheap prices. They seem relatively stable to me for production use, so what do you think of them?

    (And as always one should have a backup as well)

    but y'know I do think that we might be straying away from the point of the post and I do understand what you mean from regulatory point of view as well but hopefully this helps ya.

    Thanked by 1emgh
  • emghemgh Member, Megathread Squad

    @whynotlearn said:

    @emgh said:

    @Mainfrezzer said:

    @emgh said:
    let after the 328th company involucrated overnight: ALL IS FINE AND REMEMBER THAT LARGE COMPANIES ARE NOT BETTER, A COMPANY BEING LARGE MEANS NOTHING

    let when aws has one bug: I WOULD NEVER EVER USE AWS THIS IS ABSURD AND CAN NOT BE TOLERATED

    Aws has a history of billing issues and if people didn't go public and got the virality with it, I doubt they would have been resolved.

    I cannot fathom why you ever would pick them with the many options you have

    ok name many better options with support for complience mode on s3 with physical data being stored in sweden

    rhetorical question, you can't, and if you can, they'll be other similar providers just like AWS, I'm thinking Azure probably supports this and they have a datacenter in sweden, but you won't see host-c or skhron support this, it's completely different markets for completely different audiences

    regulatory reasons make it completely uninteresting to even compare

    have you checked out https://hexabyte.se ?, they provide S3 storage at comparatively cheap prices. They seem relatively stable to me for production use, so what do you think of them?

    (And as always one should have a backup as well)

    but y'know I do think that we might be straying away from the point of the post and I do understand what you mean from regulatory point of view as well but hopefully this helps ya.

    I haven’t, but honestly I’d really doubt if they supported complience mode, I can check. Played around a bit in their UI and it looked very basic. Not even the bigger names like GleSYS etc do

    Thanked by 1whynotlearn
  • whynotlearnwhynotlearn Member
    edited July 17

    @emgh said: I haven’t, but honestly I’d really doubt if they supported complience mode, I can check.

    You can perhaps ask them for compliance mode. I do think that they might support it given that iirc they had some sweden businesses on so they must follow the regulations you are talking about I suppose

    @emgh said: their UI and it looked very basic. Not even the bigger names like GleSYS etc do

    Ironic because the post we are talking within is about how AWS's UI messed up and is showing billions of dollars* I'd much rather take a basic UI that is true than the billing issues that AWS seems to be providing of.

    but honestly if it fits your compliance needs, then I think that its all good, you should contact them asking about these regulations/compliance perhaps

    Thanked by 1emgh
  • emghemgh Member, Megathread Squad
    edited July 17

    @whynotlearn said:

    @emgh said: I haven’t, but honestly I’d really doubt if they supported complience mode, I can check.

    You can perhaps ask them for compliance mode. I do think that they might support it given that iirc they had some sweden businesses on so they must follow the regulations you are talking about I suppose

    @emgh said: their UI and it looked very basic. Not even the bigger names like GleSYS etc do

    Ironic because the post we are talking within is about how AWS's UI messed up and is showing billions of dollars* I'd much rather take a basic UI that is true than the billing issues that AWS seems to be providing of.

    but honestly if it fits your compliance needs, then I think that its all good, you should contact them asking about these regulations/compliance perhaps

    Also I’m fairly convinced it’s a 1-man operation, kinda risky for complience mode (if he decides to do something else)

  • nghialelenghialele Member

    So the issue here is the UI flop and show inccorect numba, or the one in reddit thread is being charge $2.5 B ?

Sign In or Register to comment.