211–214 of 214 posts
These things are dangerous. Someone who can take AWS down such as an employee can place a bet. These bets aren’t as innocent as they seem because the bettors can often influence or change the outcome.
Jokes on you. All betting sites are based on US-East1.
IAM? Def. But how critical is IAM, anyway?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People say this, but this this was just a single AZ, and in the last 3 years of running my startup mostly out of use-1, and we've only had one regional outage, and even that was partial, with most instances uneffected. And honestly, everybody else's stuff is in use-1, so at least your failures are correlated with your customers lol.
> And honestly, everybody else's stuff is in use-1, so at least your failures are correlated with your customers lol. Is it not a selling point to be able to say "we're still up while out competitors are down"?
It's not that I think reliability doesn't matter at all, but most of our services are not multi region and it's bot the driving factor in SaaS reliability.
using aws since s3 came out and i’ve yet to see any major company do multi az failover in any capacity whatsoever. default region ftw
We were doing multi-AZ and multi-region failover at Netflix all the way back in 2011: https://netflixtechblog.com/the-netflix-simian-army-16e57fba...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone who thinks one cloud provider will provide them full resilience is fooling themselves. You need multicloud for true high availability. But then you want to use the same stack across providers and all the proprietary technologies (even hidden from you with things like terraform) are suddenly loosing their luster.
I don’t think any actually believes that. What people usually think is “resilience up to a reasonable level of risk and cost”. Multi-cloud is simply isn’t cost beneficial for 99.9% of problems. And for a lot of businesses who talk about risk, saying “we followed AWS best practices but AWS went down” is an acceptable answer to the question of liability. If you are in a position where AWS going down is a reasonable ris…
On the subject of cost. Multicloud doesn't have to be expensive, but it requires foresight during the initial design not to lock yourself up in proprietary tech.
Things such as AWS cognito, lambda elastic beanstalk, SQS can make it completely uneconomical to do multicloud.
But let's say you run roughly equivalent services (load balances, DNS, vms, containers for example under GKE, s3 compatible object storage, etc) it doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg.