AWS charges $0.09/GB. Even assuming zero caching and always dynamically requested content, you’d need 100x this “attack” to rack up $1 in bandwidth fees. There are way faster ways to rack up bandwidth fees. I remember the days where I paid $1/GB of egress on overage, and even then, this 100MB would’ve only set me back $0.15 at worst.
Also worth noting that those who’d host on AWS isn’t going to blink at $1 in bandwidth fees; they’d be hosting else where that offers cheaper egress (I.e. billed by megabits or some generous fixed allocation); those that are more sane would be serving behind CDNs that’d be even cheaper.
This is a non-issue written by someone who clearly doesn’t know what they’re talking about, likely intended to drum up traffic to their site.
Fortunately, you’d be very hard pressed to find bandwidth pricing from 18 years ago.
The point is the claimed issue is really a non issue, and there are much more effective ways to stress websites without needing the intermediary of fediverse.
AWS charges $0.09/GB. Even assuming zero caching and always dynamically requested content, you’d need 100x this “attack” to rack up $1 in bandwidth fees. There are way faster ways to rack up bandwidth fees. I remember the days where I paid $1/GB of egress on overage, and even then, this 100MB would’ve only set me back $0.15 at worst.
Also worth noting that those who’d host on AWS isn’t going to blink at $1 in bandwidth fees; they’d be hosting else where that offers cheaper egress (I.e. billed by megabits or some generous fixed allocation); those that are more sane would be serving behind CDNs that’d be even cheaper.
This is a non-issue written by someone who clearly doesn’t know what they’re talking about, likely intended to drum up traffic to their site.
deleted by creator
Fortunately, you’d be very hard pressed to find bandwidth pricing from 18 years ago.
The point is the claimed issue is really a non issue, and there are much more effective ways to stress websites without needing the intermediary of fediverse.