Live data from Hacker News

Amazon was Down

amazon.com

21–30 of 103 posts

Re: Amazon was Down

#21
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

aws != amazon. It's perfectly possible for AWS to keep running just fine, while Amazon the website bursts into flames.

Does Amazon not run their website on AWS? I assumed (incorrectly, apparently) that AWS was originally built to allow Amazon to scale their own services. Is it really a separate product that they don't use themselves?

Originally, that's true, Amazon didn't run on AWS afaik. But i believe they do now.

Nevertheless, they still have application architecture which sits above the aws substrate. It's perfectly feasible for them to have seriously fucked up a deployment that runs on top of AWS, which may be functioning just fine (and at least all of my services running out of us-east seem to be up and running).

Re: Amazon was Down

#22

At an estimated loss of $31,000 per minute http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9962010-7.html?tag=nefd.to... I'm blown away that I see Amazon goes down so often. That certainly, in my mind, doesn't bode well for the brand of AWS.

Heroku is up: http://cl.ly/image/0B0U1K3Z342R.

Conversely, when AWS had issues, Amazon.com was not impacted.

Amazon.com != AWS. I'm curious to know when AWS or Amazon.com innovations impact each other, or which one leads. I'd rather it be Amazon.com.

Re: Amazon was Down

#23
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

aws != amazon. It's perfectly possible for AWS to keep running just fine, while Amazon the website bursts into flames.

Does Amazon not run their website on AWS? I assumed (incorrectly, apparently) that AWS was originally built to allow Amazon to scale their own services. Is it really a separate product that they don't use themselves?

[deleted]

Re: Amazon was Down

#24
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

aws != amazon. It's perfectly possible for AWS to keep running just fine, while Amazon the website bursts into flames.

Does Amazon not run their website on AWS? I assumed (incorrectly, apparently) that AWS was originally built to allow Amazon to scale their own services. Is it really a separate product that they don't use themselves?

Just because Amazon is down, doesn't mean the infrastructure is the reason. They did build AWS out of the technology they used to build Amazon, but its unclear if they are using it directly or use an isolated set of services.

Re: Amazon was Down

#30

At an estimated loss of $31,000 per minute http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9962010-7.html?tag=nefd.to... I'm blown away that I see Amazon goes down so often. That certainly, in my mind, doesn't bode well for the brand of AWS.

Does Amazon really go down that often? Is there any data how often/ for how long Amazon does go down? I wonder how it compares to other sites that get the same amount of traffic.
Post reply on HN