Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon was Down

amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 103 posts

Re: Amazon was Down

#31

Post by liveaxle »

Osiris wrote: post #17
knowtheory wrote: post #14

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?

AFAIK the "Amazon runs on AWS" meme was originally a line of pure marketing tripe.

Re: Amazon was Down

#34

Post by podperson »

Somewhat off-topic: my (limited) experience with Amazon Prime video suggests it's significantly less reliable than Netflix or iTunes (neither of which are stupendously reliable, but I'd say Netflix is by far the most reliable of the three). Hulu might actually be worse than Amazon Prime.

Re: Amazon was Down

#35

Post by pkfrank »

gry wrote: post #22
austenallred wrote: post #15

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.

Even if Amazon.com != AWS, it is still bad for the Amazon Brand which encompasses AWS.

If they can't keep their own server up, how can you trust them with yours?

An unfair argument, perhaps, but one that impacts them all the same.

Re: Amazon was Down

#36

Post by ceol »

gry wrote: post #22
austenallred wrote: post #15

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.

I think the gp was saying that the brand— as in, the perception of AWS— will suffer, not the actual services.

Anyone with an ounce of server knowledge would know it's impossible to keep a website up for 100% of the time, so downtime at Amazon is understandable, but maybe the average Joe Manager is deciding between Rackspace and AWS and happens to visit amazon.com during this downtime. "If Amazon can't even keep their bread-and-butter running, how can I trust them with something like AWS?" he might say.

Re: Amazon was Down

#37

Post by vineel »

tquai wrote: post #29

It's a lesson in overengineering. At this point my $5 Pentium 3 server has a greater uptime than Amazon.

Except your Pentium 3 server doesn't have to handle over 100 million unique visitors per quarter. :P

Re: Amazon was Down

#39

Post by brokentone »

Osiris wrote: post #17
knowtheory wrote: post #14

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?

I thought the same. Werner Vogels, their CTO, said at the NYC cloud event that they moved amazon.com to it in 2010, and amazon.com international in 2011.
Post reply on HN