zlacker

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+(OP)
Writing directly from EC2 is free (within same region).

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

>>etaioi+d1
Only if you are pushing 1 message per write. 1 write per agent per minute, ends up at just over 2$ per month fox 10 agents, regardless of the number of messages - it's cheaper for any setup I've encountered. AWS services are always middling solutions, which you can often optimize for better cost efficiency.

>>really+au
Interesting point. Should have mentioned this difference though, it's a quite different architecture with different tradeoffs.

>>really+au
This is a message queue. But wouldn’t be fit for purpose for the way most people need to use message queues.

>>kondro+al2
What constitutes "the queue" is a matter of data structuring, not a singular brand (eg RabbitMQ, Redis, SQS, etc each have their own internals).

Any middle tiering of the data before it reaches the consumer, is still "the queue". You don't need to know the internals of SQS, anymore than a consumer need know the black box elements of how you collate the messages within your ad-hoc queue.