361–370 of 630 posts
And thus was ruined hundreds or thousands of pleasant Sunday afternoons. I don’t miss being on pager duty one bit. I see it looming in my headlights, sadly.
It's the Queen's birthday, a Monday off here in New Zealand... ... but not for everybody now.
It seems crazy to me that Google Cloud can have this level of instability but I, on the other hand, can never remember google.com going down. Why are they operating one with a different networking infrastructure from the other?
They did have a major outage for a few minutes on 2013: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/17/google_outage/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems global to me. This is really strange compared to AWS. I don't remember an outage there (other than s3) impacting instances or networking globally.
I have an instance in us-west-1 (Oregon) which is up, but an instance in us-west-2 (Los Angeles) which is down. Not sure if that means Oregon is unaffected though.
This must be why GitLab is giving me shit. They recently made the switch. Wonder if there is any second guessing going on over there right now.
They have a incident report page up at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RM3QnuJ4FPH10J3UrJS0T26d...
I don't know why anyone uses them. They have proven to be highly unreliable and have horrible support.
While I'm at it, I'm still bitter about gitlab switching to gcp from azure. They were trying to save face after the github acquisition and just moved on to an even more dubious company for their servers.
Yep, I can no longer see my Cloud SQL database - it's as if I've never created one at all. Really hoping this is just an issue displaying it and that Google hasn't punted my infrastructure and backups.
This is a networking issue, and your data is safe. Cloud SQL stores instance metadata regionally, so it shares a failure domain with the data it describes. When the region is down or inaccessible, instances are missing from the list results, but that doesn't say anything about the instance availability from within region.
That feeling when you open https://console.cloud.google.com and see that you don't have your Kubernetes clusters and CloudSQL databases, but CTA to create first.
Gosh, this was so scary... I thought someone had hacked in and deleted everything... I hope they come back. This is still pretty scary
This is a networking issue, and your data is safe. Cloud SQL stores instance metadata regionally, so it shares a failure domain with the data it describes. When the region is down or inaccessible, instances are missing from the list results, but that doesn't say anything about the instance availability from within region.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have a incident report page up at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RM3QnuJ4FPH10J3UrJS0T26d...
Using Google Docs to report problems with Google, including Google Docs. Irony at it's finest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure if a single S3 outage pushed any big names into their own "datacenter". S3 has still the world record of reliability that you cannot challenge with your inhouse solutions. You can prove it otherwise. I would love to hear a solution that has the same durability, avabiality and scalability as S3. For the downvoters, please just link here the proof if you disagree. Here are the S3 numbers: https://aws.amaz…
> For the downvoters, please just link here the proof if you disagree. https://wasabi.com/