21–23 of 23 posts
I was under the impression if one of the clusters were to be unavailable, the nearest mirror would resume responsibility. This should include distribution services as well.
But mostly it’s because the cloud has been so darned reliable. Or because the cloud has offered such a good value proposition for cheap and easy scaling with demand. And anyway, it's unfair to rail on people who "should have had a redundancy plan" when the service they pay money for is one with a redundancy service included in it (availability zones) which has unexpectedly also failed. Our point stands, for engineers…
Our point is it's unfair to blame Amazon 100% when there were viable and affordable ways round this outage. Some of our customers were in US East and had off-site backups, scripted server deployments and were able to get back online pretty quickly.
At what point did they make the call that the outage was too serious and they would lose all data since the last backup and start migrating? Had they pre-planned for it, or was it ad-hoc? Will they stay where they are now and use Amazon US East as their failover or migrate back in due course? Or rearchitect to handle this in future?
(thanks, re: name).
Is it just luck that the problem which happened was one they prepared for instead of one they didn't?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's an upvote button for that.
As the author of the article, I think they are allowed this type of replies...