Man, are they going to blow through their free tier lambdas real quick! /s
S3 is nasty expensive for outbound bandwidth. I’m surprised the usps landing page is there. No reason that couldn’t have been on lambda as well.
S3 is nasty expensive for outbound bandwidth. I’m surprised the usps landing page is there. No reason that couldn’t have been on lambda as well.
A general rule of thumb is CloudFront is $2500/mo for every 100 Mbps of traffic you have, not counting origin or per request fees.
I would expect they are pushing multiple Gbps with every household in the US trying to order tests.
The most expensive piece by FAR is Opensearch (previously AWS Elasticsearch) using 6 instances x 2 environments (12 total).
The cost for Elasticsearch in two environments came to ~$371 out of a total $400 bill in my last statement.
The compute cost for Lambda is very low but if you scale out to potentially millions of users it's going to be much more than $100.
Not sure if they're using Opensearch but if they are it's likely a huge part of the bill.
I'm sure there's a better alternative but it's not my particular area of expertise and I haven't been able to focus on that yet.
I saw your comment about anvere and looks like you have a background in search/ES? I'd be interested to chat but didn't see a way to contact you!
What kind of traffic numbers are you seeing? Because I can't figure out how one would ever end up with spending more than a few dollars to host a site that rarely gets a post.
Some of it is on Akamai as the article describes, but if we had everything on CloudFront and wanted to estimate the cost of 1M orders: 2.38 TiB out + (say) 1 KiB/request * 67M or 67 GiB in: that's $275.50 per 1 million orders (approximately $207 out + $67 in + $1 requests cost).
If we add 1M Lambda executions, we still get $0 since that's the entire free tier. 10M Lambda calls at 50 ms each and 128 MB of RAM cost $1.8, so that's pretty much free as well.
Assuming that CloudFront caching is configured correctly, there would be very few requests to the S3 origin so their cost would be negligible.
Someone please correct me if I've got this completely wrong. Source: https://calculator.aws/ (CF: 2.38 TB + 67 GB + 67M req).
There will be 420 million orders according to sources online, which gets us to $115,710. Very interesting - thank you for the analysis.
They're probably on a contract with a yearly minimum (multi-million) with top tier engineering support, virtually eliminating any concern for individual resources.
This is the government we're talking about. A lot of factors are going to push that pricing up (high profile of the project, risk considerations for AWS, sales team seeing blood, etc)
But with the SLA and support requirements probably involved, I definitely don't see this running on a basic account.
Static just means it's already a file, and that gets delivered directly to the user's browser with no server-side substitutions or especially database lookups.
There's some ambiguity there, but that's the basic idea. The alternative is pages that are created on-the-fly when requested, often by looking up a bunch of crap in a database, or the server running a bunch of code to compile together separate files.
"static" sites absolutely change, it's just you usually have to deploy something when you change them, it's not just "a different person viewed this".