161–170 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being dishonest about SLAs seems to bear zero cost in this case?
It's not really dishonest though because there is nuance. Most everything in EC2 is still working it seems, just the console is down. So is it really down? It should probably be yellow but not red.
I love that every time this happens, 100% of the services on https://status.aws.amazon.com are green.
Makes you wonder if they have to manually update the page when outages occur. That'd be a pretty bad way to go, so I'd hope not. Maybe the code to automatically update the page is in us-east-1? :)
Friends tell friends to pick us-east-2. Virginia is for lovers, Ohio is for availability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why they couldn't provide an error rate graph like Reddit[0] or simply make services yellow saying "increased error rate detected, investigating..." 0: https://www.redditstatus.com/#system-metrics
Because Amazon has $$$$$ in their SLOs, and it costs them through the nose every minute they're down in payments made to customers and fees refunded. I trust them and most companies not to be outright fraudulent (although I'm sure some are), but it's totally understandable they'd be reticent to push the "Downtime Alert/Cost Us a Ton of Money" button until they're sure something serious is happening.
Hopefully it results in a class action lawsuit for enough money that Amazon decides that an automated system is better than trying to supply human judgement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I've heard it's mostly true. Not only the CEO but a few SVPs can approve it, but yes a human must approve the update and it must be a high level exec. Part of the reason is because their SLAs are based on that dashboard, and that dashboard going red has a financial cost to AWS, so like any financial cost, it needs approval.
Sure, but... that just raises more questions :) Taken literally what you are saying is the service could be down and an executive could override that, preventing them for paying customers for a service outage, even if the service did have an outage and the customer could prove it (screenshots, metrics from other cloud providers, many different folks see it). I'm sure there is some subtlety to this, but it does mean t…
I worked at a company that hired an ex-Amazon engineer to work on some cloud projects. Whenever his projects went down, he fought tooth and nail against any suggestion to update the status page. When forced to update the status page, he'd follow up with an extremely long "post-mortem" document that was really just a long winded explanation about why the outage was someone else's fault. He later explained that in his…
When you get to the level you want, you get to not really give a shit and actually do The Right Thing. However, for all of the engineers clamoring to get out of the intermediate brick laying trenches, opening an incident can have pervasive incentives.
Friends tell friends to pick us-east-2. Virginia is for lovers, Ohio is for availability.
This got me thinking, are there any major chat services that would go down if a particular AWS/GCP/etc data centre went down? You don't want your service to go down, plus your team's comms at the same time.
Slack is pretty much full AWS, I've been switched over to Teams so I can't check.