Live data from Hacker News

Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again

news.ycombinator.com

371–380 of 497 posts

Re: Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again

#371

An honest question. Why do you guys use AWS instead of dedicated servers? It's terribly expensive in comparison, nowadays equally complex, scalability is not magic and you need proper configuration either way, plus now the outages become more and more common. Frankly, I see no reason.

Once you have committed to a certain way of doing things, the transition costs can be very high.

Let's consider RockCo and CloudCo. They both provide a B2B SAAS that is mostly used interactively during the working day, and mostly used via API calls for the rest of the working week. Demand is very much lower on weekends. Both RockCo and CloudCo were founded with a team of six people: a CEO who does sales, a CTO who can do lots of technology things, three general software developers, and one person who manages cloud services (for CloudCo) or wrangles systems and hosting (for RockCo).

In the first year, CloudCo spends less on computing than RockCo does, because CloudCo can buy spot instances of VMs in a few minutes and then stop paying for them when the job is done. RockCo needs a month to signficantly change capacity, but once they've bought it, it is relatively cheap to maintain.

In the second year, they are both growing. CloudCo buys more average capacity, but is still seeing lots of dynamic changes. RockCo keeps growing capacity.

In the third year, they're still growing. CloudCo is noticing that their bills are really high, but all of their infrastructure is oriented to dynamic allocation. They start finding places where it makes sense to keep more VMs around all the time, which cuts the costs a little. RockCo can't absorb a dynamic swing, but their bills are now significantly lower every month than CloudCo's bills, and the machines that they bought two years ago are still quite competitive. A four year replacement cycle is deemed reasonable, with capacity still growing. And bandwidth for RockCo is much cheaper than the same bandwidth for CloudCo.

Who's going to win?

Well, you can't tell. If they both got unexpectedly sudden growth surges, RockCo might not have been able to keep up. If they both got unexpected lulls, CloudCo might have been able to reduce spending temporarily. RockCo spent more up front but much less over the long term. CloudCo could have avoided hiring their cloud administrator for several months at the beginning. RockCo's systems and network engineer is not cheap. And so on, and so forth.

Re: Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again

#373

I wonder if AWS will make more or less money from these outages? Will large players flee because of excessive instability? Or will smaller players go from single-AZ to more expensive multi-AZ? My guess is that no-one will leave and lots of single-AZ tenants who should be multi-AZ will use this as the impetus to do it. Honestly, having events like this is probably good for the overall resilience of distributed systems…

>I wonder if AWS will make more or less money from these outages?

There is no possibility that outages are good for AWS. Nor is there more money to be made from "publicity" of the outages.

Re: Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you can say an on-premise badge hosting service would be more reliable than the cloud.

well, atleast you have the agency to do something about it yourself. also, building access systems should be hosted in the building they reside in for security reasons anyways.

This creates some really fun failure cases on the form of "I need to enter the building so anybody can enter the building".

Depending on the cloud is certainly a very stupid decision. keeping everything inside the building is better, but still not ideal.

Re: Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again

#375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were much faster than usual about updating the AWS Status page.

With some lame ass tiny blue "connectivity issues" informational text. Surely broken routing to two entire DCs is full red for all services available therein? Like what, the networking is broken but if you could send packets, the services would still work so they are green?

I was still able to reach our service running in us-west-1 when the connectivity issue was still on-going, so I don't know if it was a full interruption.

Re: Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again

#376
post #373

I wonder if AWS will make more or less money from these outages? Will large players flee because of excessive instability? Or will smaller players go from single-AZ to more expensive multi-AZ? My guess is that no-one will leave and lots of single-AZ tenants who should be multi-AZ will use this as the impetus to do it. Honestly, having events like this is probably good for the overall resilience of distributed systems…

>I wonder if AWS will make more or less money from these outages? There is no possibility that outages are good for AWS. Nor is there more money to be made from "publicity" of the outages.

I think GP has a point with,

>Or will smaller players go from single-AZ to more expensive multi-AZ?

Re: Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again

#378
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The list of affected services is a bit all over the place, especially since I highly doubt Xbox Live or Halo is running on AWS.

Down Detector doesn't really detect anything other than people saying "Is [service X] down?" on Twitter, which does mean that Xbox Live appears to be permanently offline if you believe them because the typical user for Xbox Live will declare anything from tripping over their ethernet cable to a tornado levelling their house preventing a connection to mean Xbox Live is down.

It’s still useful if you remove units from the graph and treat it as a sparkline. If there are reliably ~100 Xbox Live complaints on Twitter per hour, then suddenly there are 3000, that’s an outage.

Re: Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again

#379

I wonder if AWS will make more or less money from these outages? Will large players flee because of excessive instability? Or will smaller players go from single-AZ to more expensive multi-AZ? My guess is that no-one will leave and lots of single-AZ tenants who should be multi-AZ will use this as the impetus to do it. Honestly, having events like this is probably good for the overall resilience of distributed systems…

I would not go multiple Availability Zone within the same Infra/Cloud provider...

Re: Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again

#380
post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I wonder if AWS will make more or less money from these outages? There is no possibility that outages are good for AWS. Nor is there more money to be made from "publicity" of the outages.

I think GP has a point with, >Or will smaller players go from single-AZ to more expensive multi-AZ?

No -- if they needed to they already would have migrated to a multi-region. If they don't need it -- they won't have. The reason is simple -- it's expensive as you say. I'm not a fanboi or evangelist of AWS either -- I do have pet theories they named their products with shit names in order to make more money by making AWS skills less transferable to Google Cloud etc. S3 should be Amazon FTP, RDS should be Amazon SQL etc.
Post reply on HN