Live data from Hacker News

Amazon Web Services are down

status.aws.amazon.com

181–190 of 346 posts

Re: Amazon Web Services are down

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been on-and-off for the past few hours.. It's up right now (for me, anyway).

This morning from 5a - 6a Pacific time I was able to access my Heroku app just fine.

I can access all my heroku apps that have their own DNS. Anything with a .heroku.com subdomain is down for me. Frustrating, knowing that the apps are still running but aren't routable.

Re: Amazon Web Services are down

#182
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit's been down for several hours today, I'm sure they are already way lower 99.95%.

If the Reddit web server admins took availability seriously they would have chosen to deploy across more than one region. Do you disagree? Why do you disagree? I'm being honest, no snark involved in my questions.

[deleted]

Re: Amazon Web Services are down

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the Reddit web server admins took availability seriously they would have chosen to deploy across more than one region. Do you disagree? Why do you disagree? I'm being honest, no snark involved in my questions.

> If the Reddit web server admins took availability seriously We do. > they would have chosen to deploy across more than one region. It's far too costly to do that. We are deployed across multiple AZs, but this failure hit multiple AZs.

Why is it more expensive to deploy in zones X,Y in regions A,B than zones M,N in region C? I assume you don't just mean "US West is ~10% more expensive than US East."

Re: Amazon Web Services are down

#185
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of AWS is to forget about maintaining hardware infrastructure. Amazon are the ones who should have made backups in multiple regions, and transfer the load on failure.

"[S]hould" is the wrong word here. Clearly, they don't maintain such backups. This is clear to anyone using their service. They pay for the service anyway, so apparently it's still worth it to them, even without auto-backups. Would it make sense for Amazon to maintain automatic backups (and potentially charge more for them)? I don't know. It might make business sense, it might not. But their service is apparently pop…

[deleted]

Re: Amazon Web Services are down

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the Reddit web server admins took availability seriously they would have chosen to deploy across more than one region. Do you disagree? Why do you disagree? I'm being honest, no snark involved in my questions.

The whole point of AWS is to forget about maintaining hardware infrastructure. Amazon are the ones who should have made backups in multiple regions, and transfer the load on failure.

Then it would be much more expensive at the bottom tiers, meaning I wouldn't be able to play with it on a whim without thinking about the money. That would suck.

Re: Amazon Web Services are down

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This morning from 5a - 6a Pacific time I was able to access my Heroku app just fine.

I can access all my heroku apps that have their own DNS. Anything with a .heroku.com subdomain is down for me. Frustrating, knowing that the apps are still running but aren't routable.

Yay, cloud.
Post reply on HN