201–210 of 311 posts
Convenient that we're too backward to use AWS. That means everyone can at least talk about it here when AWS is down.
A magic bullet it isn't.
As https://twitter.com/DEVOPS_BORAT says, At conference you can able tell cloud devops by they are always leave dinner for respond to pager. Also, What is happen in cloud is stay in cloud because nobody can able reproduce outside of cloud. (And many other relevant quotes.)
To be fair, AWS downtime always make the news because they affect a lot of majors websites, but that doesn't mean an average sysadmin (or devops, whatever) would do better in term of uptime with his own bay and his toys.
What do you do when Amazon is down other than sweat?
Convenient that we're too backward to use AWS. That means everyone can at least talk about it here when AWS is down.
Funny thing is, the last couple interviews I've had in Chicago and Silicon Valley, I actually get points when explaining caution is necessary when using AWS for production. A magic bullet it isn't.
Slays millions with a single round.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, AWS downtime always make the news because they affect a lot of majors websites, but that doesn't mean an average sysadmin (or devops, whatever) would do better in term of uptime with his own bay and his toys.
When our gear is down, we can actually get into the datacenter to fix it. What do you do when Amazon is down other than sweat?
Convenient that we're too backward to use AWS. That means everyone can at least talk about it here when AWS is down.
I'm not familiar with HN's technical stack (other than arc), how has it scaled as the community grew over the years?
The N. Virginia datacenter has been historically unreliable. I moved my personal projects to the West Coast (Oregon and N. California) and I have seen no significant issues in the past year. N. Virginia is both cheaper and closer to the center of mass of the developed world. I'm surprised Amazon hasn't managed to make it more reliable.
I don't understand why anyone's site is only in one datacenter. i thought the point of AWS was that it was distributed with fault tolerance? Why don't they distribute all the sites/apps across all their centers?
Unfortunate. I have to deal with a number of folks who will be overjoyed to read this news when their tech cartel vendor of choice forwards it this evening. There's a huge contingent of currently endangered infrastructure folks (and vendors who feed off them) out there who throw a party every time AWS has a visible outage.
Even if you're totally sold on the cloud, you can still have a requirement that things be transparent all the way down. AWS is one of the least transparent hosting options around.
If you're a customer of a regular colo, or even a managed hosting provider themselves based at a colo, it's pretty easy to dig into how the infrastructure is set up, identify areas where you need your own redundancy, etc. Essentially impossible within AWS -- there is no reason intelligible to me that ELB in multiple AZs should depend on EBS in a single AZ, but that's how they have it set up.
For added fun, their EC2 console is down. I got this for a while: Http/1.1 Service Unavailable ... then an empty console saying "loading" for the last 20 minutes. Then recently it upgraded to saying "Request limit exceeded." in place of the loading message (because hey, I'd refreshed the page four times over the course of 20 minutes). On the upside, their status page shows all green lights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not familiar with HN's technical stack (other than arc), how has it scaled as the community grew over the years?
I think it's a case of "well optimized code which does as little as possible can handle an awful lot of users on a single beefy box".