Is there a way to automate AWS savings plans analysis instead of doing it manually every quarter?
Asked by
TechSavvyExplorer92
Managing AWS Savings Plans can be quite the headache. Every quarter, I find myself stuck in this repetitive cycle of analyzing usage patterns to predict future compute needs, determining the best savings plan coverage, and then submitting recommendations for leadership approval before finally making a purchase. By the time we get through this process, our usage often shifts, which makes the entire analysis outdated.
I mean, the recommendations from Cost Explorer give a decent starting point, but they fail to consider upcoming projects or changes in architecture. They primarily rely on historical usage, which can lead to either over-commitment—leaving savings behind—or under-commitment—paying for capacity we don't actually need. Finding that optimal balance feels like a constant struggle.
Making three-year commitments can be tempting because they save more, but for startups that are in flux, it can feel too risky. And then there's the hassle of varying coverage percentages when workloads shift, which requires continual evaluation of whether to purchase more or select the appropriate savings plan type. I can't shake the feeling that this process ought to be automated in some way, but I haven't discovered anything that does the job reliably. Am I stuck with this manual analysis for good, or is there a better workflow out there?
Answers
It's definitely a nuisance when coverage suddenly drops; you have to determine whether it’s a positive (like moving to cheaper instances) or negative (like losing coverage by accident). Unfortunately, it always involves some manual checking.
Reply to this answer
If you’re willing to pay for it, hiring someone to handle this can work well. But really, without someone who genuinely cares about aligning costs with your business goals, it’s hard to ensure your spending is effective. The main decision lies in whether to do it in-house, hire out, or skip it altogether; and each has its own level of competence.
Reply to this answer
Yeah, those three-year commitments are daunting for startups! One-year terms usually feel safer, especially since infrastructure can change dramatically in just a few years.
Reply to this answer
When it comes to choosing between compute savings plans or EC2-specific ones, it depends on your priorities. Compute options are more flexible, while EC2-specific plans typically offer more savings. It's all about weighing what matters most to you.
Reply to this answer
You might consider looking into a secondary market for reserved instances. It can help alleviate some of the risks associated with overcommitting.
Reply to this answer
While there are companies that can manage this for you, the reality is this still tends to be a manual process unless you opt to automate it yourself. You’ve rightly pointed out the significant risks involved when choosing options in this space.
Reply to this answer
I think automating the process is appealing, but trusting a tool to independently buy commitments can be risky. What if it mistakenly commits you to a large sum of unneeded capacity? Some solutions like ProsperOps or Vantage Autopilot exist, but I’d be cautious and want to deeply understand their logic before letting them run on their own.
Reply to this answer
You’re spot on about Cost Explorer—it’s too simplistic. It misses important context like upcoming migrations or yearly traffic spikes that can affect your planning.
Reply to this answer
Add your answer
Answers are reviewed before publication.
Related Discussions