141–150 of 254 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
we definitely had issues with all of the AZs in east-2, and far more services impacted than just EC2 (f.e. RDS, elasticache were intermittently down for us)
Both RDS and elasticache run on EC2. But both of them have Multi-AZ options.
all of our production services are multi-az as well
I dunno how else to put it. Having EVERYTHING on AWS is a national security threat. This isn't good, and someone who can do something about it needs to.
The fact that so many popular sites/services are experiencing issues due to a single AZ failure makes me think that there is a serious shortage of good cloud architects/engineers in the industry. It would be one thing if this was a Regional failure, but a single AZ failure should not have any noticeable effect.
I don't think there's a shortage of people who can architect reliable services. I think companies simply put reliability on the back burner because it rarely bites them. It's the same reason technical debt is so rarely paid off.
It's not debt if you don't have to pay for it -- and if the ongoing costs of whatever it is are relatively insignificant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It gives me a bad gut feeling when you imply that multiple instances of a service is more complex than a single instance which cannot be duplicated easily. I also disagree that it is inherently more costly to run a service in multiple locations.
How do you NOT pay more for running double of everything + load balancers?
Let's say your website requires 4 application servers, you can then tolerate a single AZ failure by using 5 application servers and spreading them among 5 AZs.
Wonder if this is why Zoom is down. Wasn't able to connect just now. The connection proxy/sites were giving 504s.
I understand that us-east is AWS's oldest and biggest facility, but Amazon seems to have more money than Croesus, why aren't they fixing/rebuilding/replacing us-east with something more modern?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It gives me a bad gut feeling when you imply that multiple instances of a service is more complex than a single instance which cannot be duplicated easily. I also disagree that it is inherently more costly to run a service in multiple locations.
Of course it's more costly, you need to ensure state between locations so by virtue there's more infra to pay for. It's not just a single instance too, there's generally a lot more infrastructure (db servers, app servers, logging and monitoring backends, message queues, auth servers... etc)
(And checkbox-easy is sweeping edge cases and failure modes under the rug)
The fact that so many popular sites/services are experiencing issues due to a single AZ failure makes me think that there is a serious shortage of good cloud architects/engineers in the industry. It would be one thing if this was a Regional failure, but a single AZ failure should not have any noticeable effect.
The fact that so many popular sites/services are experiencing issues due to a single AZ failure makes me think that there is a serious shortage of good cloud architects/engineers in the industry. It would be one thing if this was a Regional failure, but a single AZ failure should not have any noticeable effect.
Multi-AZ architecture just double the cost at least, and it tends to cost even much more if the business is small. Good engineers find the balance between the cost and the availability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you NOT pay more for running double of everything + load balancers?
You do not need to pay double for everything, that might have been true with traditional VPS providers but it is not the way it works with cloud services. You decide on what kind of failure you're willing to tolerate and then architect based on those requirements (loss of multiple AZ's, loss of a region, etc..). Let's say your website requires 4 application servers, you can then tolerate a single AZ failure by using…