throuwout1234

>Did you miss that this is oriented around serverless? It doesn’t mean their application is tiny, it just means they can scale down a long way. Which, given that they are using serverless, is unsurprising.

DynamoDB and Amazon Aurora are serverless storage solutions but you still pay for the data you store. It is highly surprising their total production storage cost is less than ~$21. For reference, a few terabytes of data in DynamoDB costs thousands a month.

>You might be thinking: isn’t that expensive? Won’t we be paying hundreds of dollars to AWS? Nope—not with serverless solutions! The genuinely serverless solutions are all pay per usage, so if your AWS account has zero activity, for example through the night and weekend when engineers aren’t working, then you won’t pay a dime. There are a few exceptions to this, such as S3 storage, DynamoDB storage, RDS storage, Route53 hosted zone, etc. costs, but they tend to be minimal.

>For example, Plain’s January bill for our 7 developer accounts was a total of $150—pennies compared to the developer velocity we gain by everyone having their clone of production. Typically, the largest cost for each developer is our relational database: Amazon Aurora Serverless v1 PostgreSQL. It automatically scales up when it receives requests during development and down to zero after 30 minutes of inactivity.

I don't understand this at all. If "7 full production instance cost $150" then your application is tiny and you don't need 15 AWS services. The storage costs alone should far exceed that for large application. If a $150 production instance is "scale" then we're lost as an industry. If you application is this tiny, Just. Use. A. Server.