31–40 of 44 posts
Maybe centralising all our IT infrastructure wasn't a good idea after all.
I dunno. If just your employers site is down then you'll be expected to fix it, whereas if everyone is down there's less pressure.
Maybe centralising all our IT infrastructure wasn't a good idea after all.
I dunno. If just your employers site is down then you'll be expected to fix it, whereas if everyone is down there's less pressure.
B2B customers don’t care if the other sites are also down, your SLA is affected with them, and they will want compensation.
https://status.cloud.google.com/incidents/8cY8jdUpEGGbsSMSQk... Seems to be some hardware problem at least in us-east1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno. If just your employers site is down then you'll be expected to fix it, whereas if everyone is down there's less pressure.
Nobody who talks to actual stakeholders can use this as a defence. B2B customers don’t care if the other sites are also down, your SLA is affected with them, and they will want compensation.
Yes. Many times. Kubernetes upgrade during maintenance schedule borks up entire cluster, yet everything is green on status page. Support case under enterprise support plan took almost 6 hours to get it resolved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn’t a whole-cloud outage. It’s not even a whole-region outage. Whole-cloud outages are pretty damn rare. The recent GCP issues are an exception to the general rule. I’d posit that the complexity of a multi-cloud setup is generally going to reduce your service’s reliability more than relying on a single cloud does.
Whole-zone outages are also rare...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whole-zone outages are also rare...
"Rarity" is a distinction without merit in this particular case; the important thing to note is that (most) clouds don't guarantee _any_ availability of a single zone. A system which stashes all of its infrastructure in one zone only is expected to be impacted by issues with that cloud, while a multi-zone setup spanning a region is generally "soft-guaranteed" to be resilient to normal operations / failures.
Really?
AWS (EC2) does: https://aws.amazon.com/compute/sla/?did=sla_card&trk=sla_car... so does GCP (GCE): https://cloud.google.com/compute/sla?hl=en and so does OVH: https://us.ovhcloud.com/legal/sla/public-cloud/
Are none of those three part of "most clouds"? What cloud platform do you use?
Reminder that multi cloud >>> multi region Anyone who says otherwise is selling availability theater Too many whole-cloud outages due to a bad config in the last 2 months (GCP x2, cloudflare x2)
In my current job as a technical due diligence advisor, I frequently recommend multi-AZ setup but specifically not multi-region, because the former is easy and worthwhile while the latter carries a lot more operational overhead (you become much more sensitive to various latencies and network jitters) and you now need to think about things like synchronous vs async replication, etc. Much better to focus dev effort on the product, rather than eke out an additional .001% of availability (unless availability is a super critical component).