Netlify just sent me a $104k bill for a simple static site
old.reddit.com
old.reddit.com
Our support team has reached out to the user from the thread to let them know they're not getting charged for this.
It's currently our policy to not shut down free sites during traffic spikes that doesn't match attack patterns, but instead forgiving any bills from legitimate mistakes after the fact.
Apologies that this didn't come through in the initial support reply.
“0$ to get started, then pay as you go” reads to me: “0$ to get started, and then you can order add-ons and extra features as you need them”, not “$0 to get started, but we may start charging you virtually unlimited amounts at any point without prior notice”.
When signing up for the “Starter” tier initially, I completely misunderstood this. I didn’t have to enter any credit card or invoice details, so I thought as long as you don’t have that info from me, you can’t and won’t bill anything.
1. Would Netlify forgive the bill if this didn't go viral?
2. How do you plan to address this issue so that it never happens again?
Everyone here knew someone from Netlify would come and say OP wouldn't have to pay. That was a given. Now we want to know the important answers.
This is a serious matter. We are building a new site for our company with Netlify, but we can't open ourselves to this predatory practice. And even if you do not mean to be predatory, even the option of such is enough.
If not resolved with a clean, legally binding promise, our company (and probably quite a few others) must move our business to Cloudflare, Amazon, or some other competitor of yours.
"Didn't come through" doesn't actually match the user's report of having support explicitly offering 20% and then 5% payment. It sounds like maybe you have a training problem? That seems like one of the important points to speak to.
That doesn't square with the 5% fee on the original $104k that your company told the OP to then pay.
Well, giving the option to users to plan ahead would be best, no? Like a setting to choose whether they want a potentially unlimited bill versus downtime. Instead of that, you are choosing to stress and make people scared/anxious/homeless even (if they don't think of raising the issue on HN).
Seriously, this is not rocket science. This must have been discussed before in your company, and someone actually made this decision to stress people about such bills.
The legitimate mistake sounds to be on _your_ side if anything. You failed to match the attack pattern after all.
> Apologies that this didn't come through in the initial support reply.
The support email said you normally discount the attacks to 20%, but in this case it would be discounted to 5%. Are you here publicly claiming that your policy is to in fact to forgive (i.e. discount 100%) these bills? Was the support reply totally incorrect in claiming that you normally discount the attacks to 20% or are you lying when saying that your policy is to forgive the bills? You might want to clarify your position here.
This is a static site. To reach that sort of bandwidth out of nowhere you'd need to publish the blueprint for a teleportation machine
You can avoid this sort of bad press and disgruntled users and your support cost by just giving users the option to shut down the site once the bandwidth budget is up.
Do you forgive 100%, 95%, or 80% of the bill?
Is the 100% only available when a story about a bill goes viral?
This large bill doesn’t look like a legitimate mistake, it looks like everything worked as intended until things got escalated via Hacker News.
Not only should this stuff be capped rather than the dam allowed to flow, but your systems should have picked this up immediately and known it for its nature.
Thus must have been a nice little earner for you over the years.
I'm moving all my netlify sites elsewhere, bob.
I'm probably not the only one.
I interpret this as "we always charge for traffic served, but we attempt to block illegitimate traffic" which means of course that the worse their traffic discriminator performs, the more money they make!
One question though, what is Netlify gonna do to ensure this doesn't happen again?
I understand it's a hairy question, but the general consensus seems to be some policy must be changed or at least some line should be drawn.
That's terrible for marketing.
It may only move a few MB a month, but I just can't risk if I put anything more substantial there that I might get hit with a bill for $100k and you maybe will forgive it. And that this has apparently been policy for nearly a decade makes it even worse.
Sure, this instance was resolved, but it's also the top post of the last month. Who honestly things it would be the same outcome if not for going viral...
I wont touch a fake free service if it requires a payment method. Want my money, give me a reason to pay you, dont trick me into paying you.
Temped to go fuzz your product and document other dark patterns...
Truly shameful.
Your support was going to charge him 5% as a "sign of good fate". How kind.
If it hadn't gotten traction, you absolutely would have charged him.
How many other people have you strong armed into paying ridiculous bills?
The fact that you have no usage limits is clear indication that this is intentionally left open to abuse.
Extremely shady and downright criminal.
https://answers.netlify.com/t/limit-bandwidth-to-avoid-high-...
I don't understand why they won't just raise a 503 if the traffic exceeds the spend limit, or at the very least provide that as an option.
If their advertising is targeted to small businesses and individuals who could never afford this type of service, they could be guilty of false advertising, at least morally guilty. I haven't seen their marketing so I wouldn't want to say.
I've dealt with Netlify's support [1], and one of their CS heads was incredibly rude to me and blamed me for the problem they created.
https://docs.netlify.com/domains-https/custom-domains/config...
If they just reduce to 5% like that, it shows how disconnected this is from their real bandwidth cost. Really does feel like a scam.
So even a reduction to 0.2% would habe been possible. Honestly don't understand why anyone feels comfortable overpaying so much. Especially when there is no configurable spending limit.
In the Netlify case, though, insisting that this person still pay 5% is downright insulting. I’m sure they’re taking a hit already - just waive the whole thing.
It's a value added service, they don't trade bandwidth as a commodity. Therefore unfair characterisation.
Plus, if you dive deeper: Bandwidth doesn't cost anything because bandwidth is just about pulsing some light in some glass fiber and applying some minuscule voltage on some metal fiber.Okay, maybe it costs some amount of electricity but all this is just a business model for paying on capital expenditure through time share arrangements. People can have all kind of models for this, for example you can come together with others or pay it all by yourself to install the equipment and have free bandwidth for the lifetime of the equipment.
It's all just arrangements to cover the capital investment and earn something on top of it. That's not a scam. A scam would be if they didn't account correctly for the timeshare usage or induce usage to boost payments.
Don't have a business model that charges customers for your mistakes.
This customers bandwidth usage jumped from free tier to $100k in very short time. To be honest, this shouldn't even be possible. Any "free" tier that allows for a surprise $100k bill is not a free tier.
This bandwidth usage is the result of a mistake on Netlify's part. That much seems clear.
To go and suggest that the customer is responsible for any portion of the bill is where things really went sour imo. Don't do this. Ever. Unless you want your company to go viral for all the wrong reasons.
If you want another good example of how badly this can backfire, look at what happened when Unity announced their new pricing scheme. Unity's new pricing scheme also allowed for unbounded bills. At first they didn't even deny this. Later they said it was a customer misunderstanding. I.e., they blamed the customer for their mistake.
Thankfully, the CEO of Unity was fired.
The lessons are very straightforward:
1) Don't implement predatory pricing schemes (this can even be done unintentionally, but the intent doesn't matter).
2) If you do implement predatory pricing, the worst thing you can do is put on your surprised pikachu face when the customer asks why their bill is bigger than their annual income.
A moment of silence for the people who got DDoS-ed, didn’t go viral and still had to pay $5k.
These kind of stories (alongside cancelled accounts) repeat over and over again and will soon become so not newsworthy that they will either not end up in front page, nor people will check on the eventual outcome which means these companies will get away with not moving a finger.
When I received a message from the bank saying my account was in the red I discovered that AWS had been billing me 1100 / month for 5 months before I even noticed. It was for something I'd set up one night while bored and then forgot about it. They drained my account :( Even had the nerve to say I had to pay for premium support only to get a "lol, pay" response.
1. Offer “free static website” with lots of templates and guides to help you build one
2. The first 100GB is free and beyond that it’s $0.01/MB. But no worries! Very few customers actually use up that free bandwidth and in case you need more you can purchase packages for $100/TB. Also we offer a free service that will help you get your site more visible by advertising it, it’s included by default.
3. After a month or so, randomly help a customer bump the website and make it popular by putting it in some list that is frequently crawled. Secretly hire someone else to crawl these websites and make lots of download requests
4. Once the customer suddenly gets 10TB of traffic, bill them for 9900GB which is $99000
5. As long as 1 out of 100 customers pay, you are profiting $990 per customer! For the rest of customers, offer a 5% discount so they only have to pay $1980. Threat taking them to collections if they refuse.
Become the next millionare by just selling free static websites to 1000 customers! Anyone join us?
Just suspend service on excessive overages...
#1. If you think there's any chance of getting DDoSd, you should already be on a business plan instead of a starter tier.
#2. If you think there's any chance of your site going viral, you're going to want to pay the cost anyway to let all those people visit.
I agree that's ridiculous and that the lack of any option of capping costs would mean I'd never sign up for the service. But that's the official response, for what its worth.
[0] https://answers.netlify.com/t/limit-bandwidth-to-avoid-high-...
As I recall, you have to actively sign up for the paid plan (Blaze) to get pay-as-you-go billing. Otherwise, you get free quota, and if it's up, it's up.
I think it also integrates into all of Google Cloud's billing management stuff, but I've never had to bother with that.
Like all of the big clouds with free tiers and nuke it from orbit level footguns lying about everywhere?
There was no awareness on the part of the customer service people how ridiculous that was. It would be physically impossible for my service pipe to deliver that volume of water even if it had been running full open for the entire month. I kept escalating until I reached someone who agreed, and they sent someone out to re-read the meter. And my bill was reduced to about $35.00, the normal amount.
Front line customer support isn't always very in tune with what is sensible for a given customer's account.
Not always - but a lot of the times, especially for lower quality companies.
Vercel seems like the perfect solution, and I love how it supports the development community.
I am moving all my current and future hobby projects away from Vercel due to concerns raised in this discussion. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39520776
Although I am a very small customer of Vercel, I have been advising larger organizations on IT and data infrastructure for the last decade or so.
I can say with very high certainty that spending limits are a critical discussion point in every large organization when making IT decisions. I've observed multiple instances where a potentially better solution was not selected due to the risk of overspending.
Just went through Vercel's docs:
---
"Vercel helps to mitigate against L3 and L4 DDoS attacks at the platform level. Usage will be incurred for requests that are successfully served prior to us automatically mitigating the event. Mitigation usually takes place within one minute.
Usage will be incurred for requests that are not recognized as a DDoS event, such as bot and crawler traffic.
You should monitor your usage and utilize Edge Middleware to protect against undesired traffic based on its IP, User-Agent header value, or other identifiers."
---
That doesn't help me sleep well.
I feel that by now, these hosting providers should simply adopt best ddos protection practices and take responsibility for failure to protect.
"You should monitor your usage and utilize Edge Middleware to protect against undesired traffic based on its IP" - there should be some really good defaults for this right?
Clearly it's possible - Cloudflare's ddos protection is worded more strongly.
I'm willing to pay more for the service for peace of mind. Like, even $10/mo more to insure against getting smacked out of nowhere.
Yeah, we got hammered once with over 10TB/mo and noped out of Netlify as fast as we could: https://twitter.com/rethinkdns/status/1370342245841342466 Had to pay the bill in full.
Cloudflare's free tier is ridiculous: We do over 30TB+ of genuine traffic for $0. Makes it hard to move to any other platform. As a small tech shop, this is my Hotel California I'm happy to never leave.
Under the free tier:
> Unlimited bandwidth
An interesting story that expands on the above concept but a different vector entitled, "Illegal Life Pro Tip: Want to ruin your competitors business?" : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36566634
Now, who in the would would be thinking of having ddos protection for their hobby project? This is just absurd thinking.
Even if the DDoS wasn't caught by Cloudflare, the total cost for 192TB bandwidth on Hetzner would be €172. Although even after 10 years on Hetzner I've never paid for any bandwidth, always well within their generous 20TB free bandwidth.
They also likely drop any charges if you escalate via support in case it was actually DDOS. E.g if you normally have 100GB / month and now you magically have 50TB / day.
What Netlify does is a scam.
So we're using Github Pages for static hosting and a $5 box from OVH now. Unmetered bandwidth, plenty resources for our purposes. Cheap enough, and we will never, EVER, have to worry about an attack like this. Well worth it imo.
Imo, serverless is great for internal jobs where you can control spending. For public facing things, you have to be a lot more careful.
Sure there is no such thing as "free unlimited" bandwidth but I much prefer unlimited with a fixed cost until they decide it's not worth it and shut me down vs unlimited risk with no ability to cap it.
The lack of cap is the worst part and it's 100% a business decision. Every provider who tracks bandwidth could add a cap but they just choose not to because it's too profitable and the risk is mostly* on the customer anyways.
*there is of course a tiny chance they the customer goes bankrupt and they get almost notning, but usually they just need to pretend to be nice and forgive all or most of it
https://docs.github.com/en/pages/getting-started-with-github...
But in the vast majority of cases you could just take a $5 VM, apt-get install nginx and be absolutely fine. A tiny bit more effort and you can make sure it's always up to date and very secure. Plus you get a VM you can use for other things when needed.
[0] https://docs.hetzner.com/cloud/billing/faq/#how-do-you-bill-...
What they should have is monitoring per user and a default that 503s the site with no overages that has to be proactively disabled by the user. Instead they’re just letting it ride and trying their luck by negotiating down the overage charge to what they think the user can stomach.
The Netlify team must think: we waive the fees, because in this instance we noticed the negative press and want to avoid this from blowing up. When this happens to other users, we don’t care, as long as it does not go viral.
Such a pity, Netlify has great UX and I was so happy hosting static pages on their service. But without spending limits, this is not an option for me any more. I could not sleep well when there is a possibility of a $10.000 invoice reaching my inbox.
What I didn't appreciate is static assets are completely free: https://developers.cloudflare.com/pages/functions/pricing/#s...
So therefore I assume static cloudflare pages are free.
Incidentally Vercel does seem to have an (annoyingly indirect) way of halting usage based on spending: https://vercel.com/docs/accounts/spend-management
Has anyone implemented this, are there any problems with it?
- Enable spend management (https://vercel.com/team_name/~/settings/billing).
- Set webhook to pause the project: https://vercel.com/docs/rest-api/endpoints/projects#pause-a-...
When the amount hits the targeted value, Vercel will call the webhook that pauses the project.
If anyone has a solid bash one liner to stress test a website, so that I can test whether my cloud billing cap will work correctly if I accidentally try to egress 100 MB of data or something, I would seriously appreciate it. There was one on a blog post here like a year back, using apache iirc, but I forgot to bookmark it.
the binary should be easy to install with your package manager, you may have it installed already
example:
They seem to have dropped that plan now.
I was starting to move back to traditional hosting as these platforms are convenient, but you do lose control and get hammered for their addon services and simple things like static ips are beyond them, even if you offer to pay.
Also, if their cdn is naughty listed, corporate networks may block your site as you are sharing pro and business plans with free sites that maybe serving malware etc.
Hearing this story has pushed me to move.
I hope they sort that for you, they really should have the ability to protect a site and let you choose what to do if you are exceeding your limits.
Why do not more technically inclined people self-host? Is it force of habit from how things are done at work?
I would much rather run the "risk" of some occasional dowtime, than keeping the lights on at all costs under a DDoS-attack.
Companies should be legally required to allow their customers to set a ceiling to their monthly spending.
Also, being at the mercy of a CEO and their understanding is a no go, whether you're a company or an individual. We want to be 100% sure we're not going to get bankrupt when using a service. "Don't worry, our policy is to usually erase the debt" is not an appropriate answer.
They should definitely be able to accomodate and account for what should be a very common issue (does).
This should not be tolerated. Full stop.
At first I thought it might've been https://hanhngiox.net/ , but that one appears to have simply expired.
You'll get a call on any of their plans if your bandwidth usage exceeds certain thresholds, I am assuming your median usage is relatively tame.
Disclosure: Cloudflare enterprise customer, no other affiliation. I don't get anything for saying nice things.
Seriously, maybe I'm just old, but I look at the pricing of these hip and modern SaaS products for dead simple software and I cannot believe my eyes. The "old fashioned way" works just fine (and has always worked just fine) and is orders of magnitude cheaper.
I run my sites [0] on Hugo and copy the generated sites (Makefile) to BunnyCDN with their command line tool.
It's a plain CDN, but does include DNS hosting for easy SSL certificates and has scriptable DNS [1] where you can run Javascript for dynamic DNS.
I went with them b/c they are in the EU, but I've stayed because I love them.
[0] e.g. https://www.amazingcto.com/
If it’s been a while since you did any server work: https://www.dannyvankooten.com/blog/2024/static-site-hosting...
used to use s3 for the longest time, but aside from costing a nominal fee, it's so unnecessarily complicated in this day and age.
most people wouldn't be able to pay a $100k bill
Not to mention the strong conflict of interest for netlify, who stands to gain from their customers being attacked. Netlify is getting paid for something criminal in nature having occurred.
It's like who is responsible for credit card fraud? If customers are responsible for credit card fraud, and it's their responsibility not to get scammed, then who implements fraud prevention measures and what effect would that have on the volume of fraud?
Upon review, it does not look like this is the case. I have several very low traffic projects on which would have never been anywhere close to the free limit. However, if I get involved in a random spam attack, it seems I could be on the hook for several thousand dollars.
This is incredibly dangerous. Netlify is often used as a beginner friendly free tier for static hosting. Not as something that is cheap, but as something that is free. This is just an overall dangerous position to put people in.
The price of cdn bandwidth is about 0.01/gb on low volume (cloudflare, aws, azure…) so op should be billed around $500 with 40TB. Netlify probably buys this for way less. He was presented a bill at $104k, « generously » reduced to $5k, still a x10 margin. Vercel and Netlify are outrageously expensive for what they do.
Are they also transparent about the fact that they
1. Won't do anything about a DDoS, and
2. In case there's a DDoS (or some other unusual traffic spike), you'll only get notified waaaaay after the fact when you get the $100K bill, instead of getting a timely alert that would allow you to shut your site down to prevent getting extreme charges?
No and no.
It's a scam.
What I think Netlify needs on their Plans page is to include "DDoS attacks is included in your traffic" as well as their 20%/5% charge system.
> and can see why the lack of limits would make it a bad option for plenty of people
Just out of curiosity, can you see any scenario where it WOULD be a decent option to use a free tier where you may be hit by a $20,000 or $5,000 bill out of the blue and outside of your control? You say "plenty" so I assume you consider this a reasonable system to some?
Who controls the DDOS bots? Are they truly a separate entity? There is no direct evidence to link them together, but you would think that an honest company would be more proactive in preventing problems like this for their customers.
According to the linked reddit story, this is a known issue with Netlify and their response to past incidents is basically to pound sand. It all adds up to them purposefully trying to find ways to generate a high bill for their customers and hoping a small amount will pay for it.
> they probably should have a giant warning page for new users who don't know that this is how this kind of service works
Pick one
If you need a nice front end, spin up a Wordpress instance with a provider like digital ocean or vultr or any other number of places. It’s like $5-10/ month and has terabyte bandwidth without issue typically.
Then put the site behind cloudflare or at least configure a plugin for ddos protection.
The funny thing is - such platforms "scale" easily with the underlying assumption that scale equals profits, enough to justify increased cost. Needless to say, inaccurate assumption.
I would think (as a former lawyer with only passing familiarity with class actions) that 'typicality' would be the key question.
> to determine typicality the courts consider to what extent plaintiffs’ claims are markedly different or are generally the same (for instance arising from the same event or pattern) as those of other class members with respect to the relevant legal theory and factual circumstances of the case. [1]
The defendant would probably claim that each plaintiff's issues are quite unique. However, this prong is apparently not based on the typicality of the specific facts giving rise to the lawsuit, but rather the typicality of the nature of the claim or defense. And it's apparently hard to 'win' (defeat a class action) via this prong. [2]
1: https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/what-are-th...
2: https://california-business-lawyer-corporate-lawyer.com/clas...
I would not like to pay for something which was advertised as free (don't have a nervous for paying without hard limit for home project, I can host it even on rasberry pi + pay just for address). That's why I find it is better to not use your real name as long you don't want to make real business :(
I’ll remove all my websites from Netlify and moving to Cloudflare. Auf Wiedersehen.
For example if my personal blog exceeds $1/day, I am ok if it goes down. Having no limit is insane.
from https://www.netlify.com/blog/2017/03/28/why-you-dont-need-cl...
"...Top to bottom, our infrastructure redundancies make sure we keep traffic flowing, so there's no need to add more redundancy with Cloudflare. ...
You don't need Cloudflare when you use Netlify
As you can see, we already offer what Cloudflare does, and more. If your site is not on Netlify, perhaps consider us for your one stop solution for hosting, SSL, DDoS protection, DNS load balancing, and continuous deployments. ..."
The request is very simple: max budget per month. Shut it down if it exceeds it. Implement it already and stop with the excuses.
I'm usually pretty chill, and can't help but feel like I'm overreacting - but the risk of being sent an unexpected bill of even a few hundred dollars for something outside my control is unacceptable. Trusting that Netlify will do right by me and forgive the debt in a similar situation is not an acceptable strategy for managing that risk, so epiccoleman.com now lives at a provider without this risk.
This is the beauty of static sites, btw - switching to a new host is the work of mere minutes.
I don’t think you are overreacting. I had Netlify in pro mode at work and their pricing tactics are predatory. It was really hard to figure out why I got charged a seat, even though nobody had rights etc. And I couldn’t then remove these seats, I had to wait a month and hope I figured out where those contributors came from.
Static: Github Actions to build and deploy to BunnyCDN
Non-static: selfhosted Dokku on Hetzner
Neither is free, if you're looking for free, Github Pages or Cloudflare for static sites. Free non-static, I'm not sure there are solutions that don't have the same problem Netlify has.
I'm using the free tier and have no billing info set. According to this https://github.com/netlify/ask-netlify/issues/6#issuecomment... > if you have an event that puts you over the free-tier limits, Netlify will ask you to update your billing information and add a CC
Although worryingly > We just had this happen and our site didn't stop working.
Is there any way to ensure if you hit the limit sites just stop working and you don't get billed?
It is beyond ridiculous that serverless providers don't offer a way to cap spending. The idea that it might cause your site to go offline is a complete non-argument. That what I _want_ to happen. I want to be able to say sure, I'm happy to sustain 10x traffic for a few hours, and maybe 3x sustained over days, but after that take it offline. I don't want infinitely scaling infra precisely because of the infinitely scaling costs.
Which, if it remains the only consequence, seems like a blessing now.
This is not something you would assume from the pricing page. On the pricing page, they show you:
Add-ons:
Additional bandwidth
Additional build minutes
Additional teams
In my understanding, an Add-on is something I need to enable, not something THEY enable for me if they see fit. When I am logged into Netlify, they tell me: No currently enabled site add-ons with fees
Which apparently means nothing, as they will just automatically enable the add-on for me!!!I have seven static sites on there, deleted 3 of them right now, will migrate the other 4 soon. Unbelievable bullshit.
Now I get that this is their 'product'—selling hosting to high traffic customers, and I don't particularly begrudge them charging whatever margins they think are suitable for their product and let people make their decision.
But no mechanism to cap maximum spend is completely ridiculous. Even if you require a minimum cap of say $5/$10 dollars, as long as it's clear and transparent, I think that would be reasonable.
Anyway, this has scared me into never trusting Netlify with anything any more.
They consistently missed someone that doesn't get more than 10GB traffic a month now maxing out a 5Gbps line (60TB/day stated in TFA) for several days in a row.
And consistently missed someone with a tiny bill's now racking up 10s of thousands of dollars per day. Even if they do run a mainframe and batch process at the end of each day, that still went a few days. If extending lines of credit of tens of thousands of dollars is legal, that's very generous.
What further consistency is available at Netlify?
Competitors could rinse and repeat this strategy to put netlify in the dirt for good.
I had a couple of small businesses hosted there, but this always worried me, so I moved them to a local provider, who provides what they need for a flat fee.
I have some websites with milions + autogenerated webpages and it's flooded by bot activity that I don't particularly care about.
I've blocked some through cloudflare but some look exactly like he describes: old machines with old versions of some OS and browser scattered around the globe that seem to be scanning my entire website, maybe for AI training purpose ?
The point is, I can't block them at all.
see this thread here : https://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/1azv0fs/is_this_tra...
That's approximately one month of transit through a gigabit connection, which indeed could be pretty expensive. Even at IP transit prices it would be something like $300/mo for a 1GB connection via HE but you would need something bigger to handle this traffic. I pay about $2k at bulk for that amount of bandwidth. Any way you cut it, you're getting some sort of bill (or kicked off) for that without some sort of ddos forgiveness.
That said, $104k feels excessive to me for static hosting ($0.57/gb, did I do that right?).
https://gist.github.com/princefishthrower/4517ff44a9f4c5b2d2...
For now it's still a workaround... looks like I'll be migrating to Hetzner soon...
I understand it can be difficult to stop spending exactly at a certain amount to the cent or event to the dollar or, hey, tens of dollars if traffic is really crazy. But hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Your system should be able to measure that and stop it in time.
In addition to all of that, the real moral of the story is to not use anything with dynamic billing for personal projects, even if there is a free tier. Always ensure that the free tier does not automatically turn into a paid tier.
That said, I've never used Netlify, so I don't know how they present this service at the time of signing up.
GitHub Pages is great for static sites, and included Jekyll build support is a bonus.
There are no surprises! :)
Additionally, they own ( or co-own) their DC, while Netlify and Vercel doesn't. So they can fix any billing issues at their end.
Is this something I need to worry about? Does cloudflare provide a service that is cheap that can prevent something like this for my GitHub pages site?
I assume Docker + something is most popular, but what something? Does terraform work sanely for cheap virtual hosting? Ansible? I don't want to manually install any more stuff than the minimum I can get away with!
I don't use docker for my projects, as I deploy on RHEL like systems which I'm intimately familiar how to configure (and have snippets I mix and match).
(Prepaid is also superior from a cash flow perspective too.)
Is it just that no one would pay for it? I'm well aware of how terrible a customer developers make, but has to be nearly a non-issue with Hetzner in the USA now, with how much free traffic they give you (or any other provider, DO, etc). There's even Cloudflare R2 nowadays.
Your blog probably doesn't actually need sub 100ms serve times.
Normally it should just stop serving the bandwidth once the limit hits, just like when you max out your credit card, it just gets declined, they don’t charge you forever just because someone else is abusing it..
This line scares me so much, the fact that we have to rely on an external forum to sort things out. What if my HN post doesn’t gain any attention? Is that it for me?
I understand that someone would pull all their strings in hope for solution but still, companies should be available directly.
I've seen in the thread that bobfunk (netlify CEO) and raiyu (cofounder at digital ocean) say the bill forgiveness is the right strategy. It got me curious on the above question though.
>I thought you could cap(limit) your spending e.g. "if I reach $1000 in costs, abort/pause operations"[0].
You can get a 10gbps connection, per month, for under $4K a month to a datacenter. For full usage for one month, not one day. If buying at the scale of a much larger bandwidth user, the price is much less.
The internet and www are obviously marvelous technologies with many people to praise, webtorrent is nice but in a way a hack replicating things we already had.
We can do better
I know during heavy DDoS attacks they might be too late, but also cache?
Posted only 3 hours ago and 800+ votes but it's suddenly dropped from top 3 (on page 1) to 38th (on page 2).
Is it worth noting that Netlify bought two Y Combinator startups or is that a crazy conspiracy theory?
> On May 19, 2021, Netlify announced the acquisition of FeaturePeek, a Y Combinator and Matrix Partners backed startup that enables developer teams to preview frontend content.
> On November 17, 2021, Netlify acquired Y Combinator and SignalFire-backed OneGraph to allow for the composition of apps with APIs and services using GraphQL.
Bloody scam.
Btw -- I don't really use these. Usually spin up my own VPS
The site was not live.
I can't read it because I block reddit, but I assume it's a DDOS? With a bill that large, it would actually make business sense for them to team up with DDOSers.
- $104k at ($55 / 100 GB) = 189 TB of traffic
- It means the popular ~3.5 MB media file was downloaded ~54M times
- Which sound like a lot, but if you get popular in a country with 1.4B people, it's not (~3% accessed).
What if it happens at AWS Cloudfront? At $.1/GB it sums up to ~$18k. In the light of these, Netlify's offer of ~$5k seems generous.
I’m surprised Netlify has no ddos protection.
>Since Netlify charges 55$/100GB for the exceeding bandwidth
Absolutely absurd fees, there is no basis in reality for that. Sounds like a very scummy company.
Which is crucial Netlify is called out for this. Hiding behind the "fine print" is pathetic, not a way to do business.