161–170 of 497 posts
I tried to monitor services status using https://stop.lying.cloud , but they are also hosted to AWS, and down too.
AWS should monitor itself from Azure or GCP, even DO or Linode makes more sense. Eat your own dog food shows confidence, but monitoring it is a different dimension, you need use anything but your own dog food there.
Must be a Y in the day. It amazes me how many projects exist that don't even have multi-region capability, let alone no single point of failure
All to go from, idk, 99.9% uptime to 99.95% (throwing out these numbers)? The thing is when AWS goes down so much of the internet goes down that companies don't really get called out individually.
Yup. Having issues with IT Glue and Duo here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Seems like ever since Microsoft bought AWS, it's been going down an awful lot. What?
Satire. Every time Github went down multiple people post on HN saying "every since they were bought by Microsoft, ...". As annoying as those Rust evangelists on every single memory corruption bug.
First of all, how dare you!
Second, shoulda used rust ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"No, no, of course not"
"Should I check?"
"No, don't waste time checking, get back to your TPS reports"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AWS wouldn't monitor itself from a competitor, of course, but they could just as well silo a team and isolate DCs to do independent self-auditing.
I don't know about AWS, but I know a lot of us uptime monitoring makers use (and pay) for competitor's products to know if we're down.
We are barbarians occupying a city built by an advanced civilization, marveling at the hot baths but know nothing about how their builders keep them running. One day, the baths will drain and anyone who remembers how to fill them up will have died.
Most of these people just happen to be employed at AWS or azure right now.