zlacker

>>mpweih+(OP)
Nowhere is cost mentioned. Using S3 as an ad-hoc queue is a cheaper solution, which should throw some red flags. You can easily do what SQS does for so much cheaper (this includes horizontal scaling and failure planning), that I'm consistently surprised anyone uses it. Either you are running at a volume where you need high throughput and it's pricey, or you're at such a low throughput you could use any MQ (even redis).

> Oh but what about ORDERED queues? The only way to get ordered application of writes is to perform them one after the other.

This is another WTF. Talking about ordered queues is like talking about databases, because it's data that's structured. If you can feed data from concurrent sources of unordered data to a system where access can be ordered, you have access to a sorted data. You deal with out-of-order data either in the insertions or a window in the processing or in the consumers. "Write in order" is not a requirement, but an option. Talking about technical subjects on twitter always results in some mind-numbingly idiotic statements for the sake of 144 characters.

>>really+T6
S3's eventual consistency aside, how is it cheaper?

It would seem to me that naively, S3 charges $5 per million POST requests, so it's 10x worse than SQS's $0.40 per million.

>>cldell+t7
Writing directly from EC2 is free (within same region).

>>really+q8
Only the data transfer is free. The API requests are not free. S3 does come out to be more expensive...