Skip to content

Andrew

My feedback

2 results found

  1. 10 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    6 comments  ·  Atlas » IAM  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Andrew commented  · 

    This is a huge issue from a security/auditing standpoint.

    Andrew supported this idea  · 
  2. 42 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    4 comments  ·  Atlas » Autoscaling  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Andrew supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Andrew commented  · 

    Agreed.

    The main issue with choosing a fixed value for Provisioned IOPS is you end up paying for IOPS you don't need 90% of the time.

    For example, if our service typically requires 500 IOPS and occasionally spikes to 2000 IOPS, we have no choice but to pay for 2000 IOPS all month, even though 90% of the time we only need 500 IOPS.

    I have to choose between paying for IOPS I don't need, or downtime. Both of these options suck.

    Instead, you should not limit IOPS at all (never cause downtime), and count how many I use per month, and charge me per million. This is a much fairer pay-by-usage model.

Feedback and Knowledge Base