Top
Best
New

Posted by nprateem 15 hours ago

AWS: Inaccurate Estimated Billing Data – $1.7 billion

URL already posted: https://health.aws.amazon.com/health/status

I've got an estimated bill for $1.7 BILLION over this month. Normal usage is < $5.

Obvs have created an urgent AWS support ticket. Anyone else seeing something like this?

Update: Reddit link: https://www.reddit.com/r/aws/comments/1uyuaw7/help_my_bill_s...

996 points | 620 commentspage 4
ilamont 3 hours ago|
You know, at one time Amazon was grouped in with all of the other big tech companies as a member of FAANG, as if the company has a culture of solid engineering at its core like Google or Apple.

It doesn't anymore, if it ever did. Read the shareholder letters over the last 5 years like this one (https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-ceo-and...). Move fast. Embrace AI in every corner of the company. Lay off thousands of people like we're a lean startup. Oh, but make sure to have a senior engineer check any AI code you want to push to production (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47323017).

Amazon has made some impressive software, but there's also a ton of junk getting shipped. Customers and "partners" have to deal with it every single day. Sometimes it's "oops"-level stuff like this, at other times it's AWS regions going dark for hours.

Browse the Amazon seller forums (https://sellercentral.amazon.com/seller-forums/discussions?s...). Every day there are stories about back-end things breaking, or AIs overriding attributes or flagging random items as pesticides. The receiving errors at Amazon warehouses are incredible, and take months and multiple support tickets to fix.

vasco 3 hours ago|
> other times it's AWS regions going dark for hours.

They have the best uptime of all major cloud providers.

throwaway_5753 13 hours ago||
Scared me even though it was obviously a bug once I stopped to consider the magnitude ($bn). Very unfriendly that they don't allow for hard spend caps; closed my mostly dormant personal account as a result.
largbae 12 hours ago|
If they did allow hard spend caps, it sounds like today would be a global outage.
beAbU 11 hours ago||
Well then hopefully next time they'll be a bit more careful when shipping billing code updates!
wewewedxfgdf 14 hours ago||
Cloud pricing has gotten ridiculous.

Host your own people. Host your own.

warumdarum 14 hours ago|
The old hypsters have to subsidize the new hypsters.
bobson381 9 hours ago||
A guy on the sysadmin subreddit managed to 8x the global GDP https://old.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/1uz2fv2/aws_says_...
oersted 8 hours ago|
I liked this comment from that thread :)

> I think you should spin up a whole bunch more instances, and try to cause an integer overflow so they they owe you $978 Trillion.

qrios 10 hours ago||
As someone who usually works with data analysis, the distribution of the numbers strikes me as odd. Almost all of them have one number that appears four times, and one or two that appear three times. And overall, there are an unusually small number (0–9) of digits that appear at all.

Maybe it's not just vibe-coded, maybe the numbers themselves are being hallucinated by an LLM.

berkes 10 hours ago||
> Almost all of them have one number that appears four times, and one or two that appear three times

To me that looked suspiciously like string-handling in a weakly typed language.

Like when you do `"100" + 1` in JavaScript, or `int("100" * 2)` in Python.

I've seen my share of such bugs in PHP, Python, Ruby, JavaScript. In production. Obviously not as simple as the examples, but subtle, like when a library update changed `someFancyLocalStorage.getOrDefault("lastOrder", 100)` by always casting the value to the type of the default (released as patch release). Or where typedEnvGet() should typecast "numbers", but keeps it a string when theres whitespace `AMOUNT_PER_CALL=100\n`. Or where a number passes through a deep stack of middleware and 99.9% of the times remains an int but in rare race conditions becomes a string. etc.

No evidence that's the case here. But from my experience, the repeating and strange formats of numbers hint strongly in that direction.

galonk 9 hours ago||
Pedantic as hell but `"100" * 2` in Python (= `"100100"` for those who don't know) isn't really typing, it's operator overloading. Any language with that could implement the same questionable design decision.
Sohcahtoa82 6 hours ago||
And as much as I love Python, being able to multiple a string by an integer doesn't make sense when adding an integer to a string is a TypeError.

Being able to repeat a string is fine, but it should be a str.repeat() function, not an operator overload like that.

mxuribe 8 hours ago|||
Its the LLMs talking to each other in secret code: random-looking numbers! They've achieved sentience!

Look at them up there, just plotting with each other! :-)

everforward 10 hours ago||
Someone said the numbers are all off by 2^30 because they screwed up and are charging the per GB price for each byte.

It’s probably an artifact of them all being currency multiples of 2^30

ardacinar 9 hours ago||
Well, for my case, I was paying $0 (Exactly, I managed to hunt down and delete every last resource in my account a few months ago). It was displaying $430 million for me. I don't think that is 0*2^30.
everforward 8 hours ago||
Huh, that is odd. Working backwards, that would be ~ $0.40 originally. Wonder if that’s also flat out wrong or if they’re doing some kind of currency handling that breaks when you start dealing with huge multipliers.
throwatdem12311 12 hours ago||
Hey man AI makes mistakes sometimes that’s why you need to double check the output.
carra 11 hours ago||
Several comments here talk about "nearly" having a heart attack. But I wonder: since it's happened to so many people, chances are someone had a heart attack for real. Can they legally be made responsible for that?
justusthane 11 hours ago|
When someone says "I nearly had a heart attack," it's _highly_ unlikely that they actually nearly had a heart attack. I don't think the chances are good that anyone actually had a heart attack.
tanseydavid 9 hours ago||
While I agree that this phrase is most commonly spoken in a figurative sense, folks with marginal heart health have a much greater than 0% chance of having something of this nature trigger an actual heart attack.
cryo32 10 hours ago||
How do we know if our bills were ever right if this made it into production?
ahoka 10 hours ago|
That's the neat part, you don't!
Hamuko 10 hours ago||
Well, they publish unit prices for everything, so you could just get to counting. Whenever I've had to do cost estimates, you estimate how much AWS resources you need and then times that by the unit price.
lelandfe 9 hours ago||
This just hit global news: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/17/amazon-we...

> Amazon Web Services customers receive bills for up to $1.5tn after global glitch

euio757 9 hours ago||
> One UK man whose bill is usually less than £1 says he ‘almost had a heart attack’ when he saw £5.8bn invoice

That sucks, some people will get legit panic attacks and worse over this, especially for the smaller, more believable numbers in the 50k-500k range.

Hope they recover and sue for medical bill costs, emotional damage etc.

And like one reddit user suggests, everyone affected should write to their representative about hard billing caps protections

dabinat 4 hours ago||
It says a lot about AWS that people believed these estimates were real. Amazon does not have good safeguards to prevent astronomical bills.

If someone gets access to your account they can just buy a 3-year reserved instance u7in-24tb.224xlarge and it will add almost $2m to your bill.

dlev_pika 8 hours ago||
1.5 trillion? Those are rookie numbers.

How about $5,544,640,717,404.09?

That was in my inbox this morning lmao

dirkk0 13 hours ago|
same here, I am still in shock. took me 10 minutes to find the 'operational issue' message in the dashboard. longest 10 minutes of my life.
charles_f 13 hours ago||
Can you not set spending limits in AWS?
inigyou 13 hours ago|||
No you can't. Spending limits imply realtime billing backend flows and they also imply deleting all your data so that you don't pay for storage.
benterix 11 hours ago|||
I heard this false justification already in 2007, in spite of many customers asking for it.

Incidentaly, smaller competitors solved this issue decades ago, while the big cloud decided it is more convenient never to implement it.

inigyou 8 hours ago||
Big cloud didn't want to rewrite its billing systems from scratch to please its smallest customers.
bcrosby95 8 hours ago||
With AI it should take like a weekend.
inigyou 3 hours ago||
I think they already tried rewriting billing with AI. Very smartly they only tried rewriting the estimator first. This post is about the outcome of it.
handoflixue 11 hours ago||||
Realtime billing seems entirely within the abilities of AWS.

"Limits except for Storage" seems even easier - I don't think I've ever heard of a storage-based billing story, although I'm sure one or two exist

everforward 10 hours ago|||
Storage-based billing is huge, unless you mean something other than “places that make you pay for storage separately”.

Also many places I’ve worked, storage is a huge part of the spend but that depends a lot on what you do. e-commerce doesn’t use a ton of it, but if you handle user-generated content or do any kind of training (LLM, computer vision, etc) then you can very much end up in a place where storage becomes a top line number for infra spend.

GitHub pre-Copilot was probably like that. They host a shitload of data, most of which is just at rest the majority of the time. Storage and networking are probably the majority of their infra costs.

inigyou 8 hours ago||
Storage-based billing stories. When an account is hijacked it's always for compute, not storage.
everforward 8 hours ago||
Oh, I also don’t think I’ve ever seen that but I’m not surprised. Even if you could steal a huge amount of storage, filling it with data would take ages and the cat and mouse game of moving the data as hacks get uncovered would be untenable.

I have seen things get hacked for bandwidth, back in the days before you could rent a gbps uplink from the cloud for $0.12. Some scene release groups would hack into universities or companies to do the initial seeding over their super fast links. It used storage, but that wasn’t really the goal.

Planktonne 10 hours ago||||
They could do it; they don't want to.
minitoar 10 hours ago|||
What is a storage-based billing story?
kgwgk 10 hours ago||
Once upon a time in a cloud kingdom far, far away a big, beautiful bill was issued based on storage causing much disconcertion. Etc.
SAI_Peregrinus 9 hours ago||||
> and they also imply deleting all your data so that you don't pay for storage.

Not necessarily. They could imply that your storage becomes inaccessible immediately, but only gets deleted after some time period (say, 1 month). What spending limits do depends on the implementation.

inigyou 8 hours ago||
That's even more work to implement. And now you store files on a second account that pays for only one day a month to not get deleted.
0cf8612b2e1e 4 hours ago||
No wiggle room to come up with a workable solution. Let’s go shopping instead.
prmoustache 9 hours ago|||
Storage could switch to read only.

That would mean an outage but that is still better than going bankrupt and teach you a thing or two about monitoring.

boristsr 13 hours ago||||
No, alerts but not limits.
perching_aix 9 hours ago||||
Not only can you not set limits, even the alarms are not real time. So it is entirely possible to get on the hook for terrifying amounts of money and not know until it's all too late.
reformd 13 hours ago|||
he did, 140 billion :D
masafej536 13 hours ago||
If you owe AWS 140B dollars its their problem ;)
More comments...