Ok, enough AWS outages to say I'm tired of hearing about low end stuff being flaky.
Heroku isn’t “low end,” it’s a PaaS built on top of AWS. So you’re really just hearing about another AWS outage lol
This comment doesn't say anything about heroku?
Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again
221–230 of 646 posts
Re: Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again
#222Every time a major cloud provider has an outage, Infra people and execs cry foul and say we need to move to . But does anyone really have an objective measure of how clouds stack up reliability-wise? I doubt it, since outages and their effects are nuanced. The other move is that they want to go multi-cloud... But I’ve been involved in enough multi-cloud initiatives to know how much time and effort those soak up, not…
I mean from the explanation[0], assuming that is correct (I don't have evidence to suggest it's false) - you don't need to be multi-cloud, and you don't even need to be multi-region. As long as you're spread out over multiple availability zones in a region you should be resilient to this failure. Somewhat surprising to see how many things are failing though, which implies, either that a lot of services aren't able to…
That’s true for this failure but the prior two for AWS were region wide and the one for GCP last month was global.
Re: Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. Because these laws also protect people who make such websites from the corporations they're commenting on, too. The respect must be mutual, else e.g. OSS has no basis for legal protection, either. Being concerned for the proper respect of IP laws is something that benefits everyone.
You make more friends defending humans from big companies than you do defending big companies from humans. Your argument would have a small amount of merit if you acknowledged that the laws DO NOT protect people like they do corporations. That is a hollow ideal, not reality.
I don't really see your point. My original comment was more pointing out that the operators, if not Amazon, could be seen as infringing their rights. They should update their legalese if they want to be truly protected. How is that defending Amazon?
Regardless of your pointed comment, I'm operating in the land of legal objectivity. The law doesn't care about your feelings much.
Re: Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again
#224I've built out many 42U racks in DC's in my time and there were a couple of rules that we never skipped:
1. Dual power in each server/device - One PSU was powered by one outlet, the other PSU by a different one with a different source meaning that we can lose a single power supply/circuit and nothing happens 2. Dual network (at minimum) - For the same reasons as above since the switches didn't always have dual power in them.
I've only had a DC fail once when the engineer was performing work on the power circuitry for the DC and thought he was taking down one, but was in fact the wrong one and took both power circuits down at the same time.
However, a power cut (in the traditional sense where the supplier has a failure so nothing comes in over the wire) should have literally zero effect!
What am I missing?
I've never worked anywhere with Amazon's budget so why are they not handling this? Is it more than just the imcoming supply being down?
Re: Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
is that just playing with words?
> is that just playing with words? It conveys reality, that "fail-safe" isn't literal, as if anyone believed that.
I mean it has to be play with words or tongue in cheek simply b/c the assumption of a fail-safe system failing is already contradictory. So you cannot say anything smart about that beyond - there are no fail-safe systems that fail.
Re: Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again
#226Every time a major cloud provider has an outage, Infra people and execs cry foul and say we need to move to . But does anyone really have an objective measure of how clouds stack up reliability-wise? I doubt it, since outages and their effects are nuanced. The other move is that they want to go multi-cloud... But I’ve been involved in enough multi-cloud initiatives to know how much time and effort those soak up, not…
I mean from the explanation[0], assuming that is correct (I don't have evidence to suggest it's false) - you don't need to be multi-cloud, and you don't even need to be multi-region. As long as you're spread out over multiple availability zones in a region you should be resilient to this failure. Somewhat surprising to see how many things are failing though, which implies, either that a lot of services aren't able to…
AWS doesn't follow their own advice about hosting multi-regional so every time us-east-1 has significant issues pretty much every AZ and region is affected.
Specifically large parts of the management API, and IAM service are seemingly centrally hosted in us-east-1. So called Global endpoints are also dependent on us-east-1 and parts of AWS' internal event queues (eg. event bridge triggers)
If your infrastructure is static you'll largely avoid the fallout, but if you rely on API calls or dynamically created resources you can get caught in the blast regardless of region
Re: Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again
#227Re: Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self-managed infrastructure doesn’t fail now?
Not at this rate. I remember we had a power outage in 2006, it actually took one of my services off air. Since then of course that has been rectified, and the loss of a building wouldn't impact on any of the critical, essential or important services I provide.
> Not at this rate.
Source? Has there ever been an industry wide survey that compares availability from "insert average colo/data center operations" with the cloud ones?
And I'm not talking about "we have 12 SREs who are based in Cupertino and are all paid top dollar to support a colo"...I'm talking average.
Re: Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps, but the status page could exist within legal boundaries with a few trivial changes anyway. Why not just do that?
No one cares, including Amazon. This webpage isn't profiting off them. There is no valuable IP here being stolen. Amazon has much bigger legal issues to focus on than some satire.
Amazon has taken down trivial things before. This is a dangerous assumption to make - "it's not important to them so I shouldn't worry about the law". Those are famous last words.
Re: Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not saying Heroku is low end. They're saying, "I'm tired of hearing that it's irresponsible to run your own servers." At least, that's what I understood.
Any place I've worked at that managed their own servers (to be fair, the last time I worked at a place like that was 2010) definitely had more protracted downtimes than AWS - it just felt not as bad because we were in control of the situation, but at the end of the day that didn't get us up any faster. Another side benefit of being with AWS is when you do have an outage, a lot of other people have outages, and so you…
[deleted]