Paying for DataDog is many orders of magnitude higher than our AWS bill.
Do you this this case for most companies monitoring serverless applications with DataDog, or there is something specific about your infra which cause this
Many other product teams at my work have lightly used serverless apps. The DataDog costs simply aren’t feasible for serverless apps. We’re actively looking into alternatives such as just using CloudWatch, Elastic, etc as it’s a huge cost for us.
I was just checking Datadog pricing for serverless, there is says - $7.20 per active function per month. If you are using 45 lambdas, is the number of functions much higher? I am guessing ~200 or so?
Though I can see, how charging based on functions can quickly shoot up the bill
No idea what happened and MSFT support couldn't tell me what was happening because at more than $100/day burn rate on a hobby project I started deleting everything connected with the effort as fast as possible.
All I know is my AKS wasn't exploding. Services were still responsive and acting normally in their minuscule cluster, this was just a logging cost explosion.
Also billing alerts are your friend.
Were these also on AWS Lambda or something else (EKS?)
If you're paying less than 10% of infra costs for monitoring, you probably don't have good enough monitoring. But if you're paying more than 25% of your infra costs for monitoring, someone is not doing their job.
What do you mean by this?
We have a lot of request/reply CRUD type requests that are heavier on reads than writes. We use API Gateway to manage websocket connections for us. This type of usage pattern and size of our customer base fits well with serverless.