Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cloudflare had a partial outage

cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 448 posts

Re: Cloudflare had a partial outage

#351

Post by efreak »

phillipseamore wrote: post #301
phillipseamore wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so serious that I already have failover after 1 hour at the registrar level, but those changes are not immediate and can take up to 24h to roll-in and roll-back due to DNS propagation and caching.

We seem to have hit the nesting maximum 1123581321, but to your point "There is no immediate option with DNS changes." There's a huge difference in changing nameservers for a domain and simply changing host records.

This is a 7th level comment. Synu below[0] has a 9th level comment, and I've seen nested comments go quite a bit further.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31821497

Re: Cloudflare had a partial outage

#352

Post by indy »

sph wrote: post #342
indy wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brace yourself for a lot more of those kinds of articles in the next few days.

I welcome them. Perhaps these outages stop all people rushing to host their single HTML page blog through them.

unfortunately their tentacles have penetrated deep into the internet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31820929

Re: Cloudflare had a partial outage

#353

Post by [deleted] »

hericium wrote: post #298

I really dislike that they are editing their status messages. Entry[1] dated "Jun 21, 2022 - 06:43 UTC" has been edited to include more detail after they posted another entry at 06:57 UTC. There seems to be no indication that the message has been altered. Currently text on the status page may suggest that they identified the problem immediately but it took about 15 minutes. Previously there was a text stating that cu…

[deleted]

Re: Cloudflare had a partial outage

#354

Post by nabla9 »

joebob42 wrote: post #136

Kind of ironic, there was a big "cloudflare is bad and a central point of failure" article on the front page just a couple days ago. Found it, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31801947 edit: Not that I necessarily agree with the article even in light of there being an outage, cloudflare has been pretty good for us. Just thought it was interesting.

Mid 2000s one computer science professor said that internet capacity is not going to match the amount of traffic. Everybody laughed. The wold was full of dark fiber after dot-com-bust.

But if you look at his math, it was correct. The era of client-server connected heterogeneous distributed Internet is just a side show today.

The solution has been centralization (clarification: big companies run their own caches and networks near users). and growth of caches and then Cloudflare taking care of the rest.

Re: Cloudflare had a partial outage

#355

Post by dxuh »

impulser_ wrote: post #178

The worst part is cloud infrastructure companies like DigitalOcean and Linode are both down simply because for some reason they can't build their own infrastructure to not rely on Cloudflare lol.

I think they rather got overwhelmed by many more requests reaching them that would usually hit Cloudflare. Also, as is widely known, people tend to hammer F5 when something like this happens, additionally increasing the number of requests.

Re: Cloudflare had a partial outage

#356

Post by FlyingSnake »

indy wrote: post #242
joebob42 wrote: post #136

Kind of ironic, there was a big "cloudflare is bad and a central point of failure" article on the front page just a couple days ago. Found it, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31801947 edit: Not that I necessarily agree with the article even in light of there being an outage, cloudflare has been pretty good for us. Just thought it was interesting.

Brace yourself for a lot more of those kinds of articles in the next few days.

With titles like "Cloudflare considered bad"

Re: Cloudflare had a partial outage

#357

Post by jgrahamc »

prawn wrote: post #169
synu wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why companies simply don't have outages, it seems like it would be a lot less stressful.

They're talking about getting accurate information from an employee posting on HN rather than on the status page, rather than the outage itself.

To be fair my information was not accurate. It was fast but when I said it was a problem with our "backbone" I was wrong (it was a networking problem but not the backbone). I favour speed over accuracy here, but the status page wants to be fast and accurate.

Re: Cloudflare had a partial outage

#358

Post by sph »

dx034 wrote: post #246
sph wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently yes, people in here are quick to defend our new overlord. "But they're great", they cry, "why should I use anything else?"

I'd love to use another company, but there's no one offering the same for the same price tag. Most of their services are free and they charge very little for the rest. Especially if you have a traffic heavy page with little revenue, Cloudflare is pretty much the only solution for CDN, WAF etc. All the others charge for traffic and cost a fortune.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Re: Cloudflare had a partial outage

#360

Post by chippiewill »

jimmydorry wrote: post #25
jayhoon wrote: post #9

CF's website is down as well. The CF Status page [0] says everything is working, though. [0] https://www.cloudflarestatus.com/

Ironically, the cloudflare.com site is a more reliable indicator. If it doesn't load, then cloudflare is down. Their status page is a joke, likely crippled to reduce legal liability, but at this point it's just an outright misrepresentation.

> Their status page is a joke, likely crippled to reduce legal liability, but at this point it's just an outright misrepresentation.

It's fairly standard practice these days for status pages to be manually updated. The difficulty with having them be automatically updated is that for it to be useful that system needs to have a greater reliability than the thing it's monitoring. The signal to noise ratio is otherwise a bit ridiculous.

Post reply on HN