401–410 of 497 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t even know what the problem is yet. Stop shouting solutions.
The problem is very clear: the status page is not working as it should.
That was fun. Badges weren't working (daily checkin required) so the front desk had to manually activate them. Slack wasn't sending messages and Pagerduty was throwing 500's.
... because you need to contact a server 1000 miles away to issue badges in your building. This cloud-for-everything-even-local-devices thing is both hilarious and sad. I wonder if anyone had trouble doing their dishes or laundry today, because I'm sure someone thought dish washers and washing machines needed cloud.
Many logical people have decided to abstract away their soul-crushing anxieties and legal gray area during outages to incredibly stable and well-staffed cloud infrastructure providers.
If you and your team are better at taking care of hardware than an entire building full of highly paid engineering specialists, then that's cool for you, but also, no you're not.
That's not to say you're not capable of running on-prem hardware that is stable.
I'm just saying that the high-handed swiping away of everyone else who's made an incredibly safe and logical decision to host their stuff in the cloud makes me question your general vibe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I checked their health status page. All is good. /s https://downdetector.com/status/aws-amazon-web-services/
What does downdetector run on?
It’s a clever way of getting reasonably accurate data very quickly and easily, though it does have it’s flaws — the data is pretty noisy and users often attribute outages to the wrong service (e.g. blaming their ISP or Microsoft or something when YouTube is down, or vice versa).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Satire. Every time Github went down multiple people post on HN saying "every since they were bought by Microsoft, ...". As annoying as those Rust evangelists on every single memory corruption bug.
> As annoying as those Rust evangelists on every single memory corruption bug. First of all, how dare you! Second, shoulda used rust ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does this service work? It seems to have all the look and feel of AWS, and somehow has more up to date info than the official AWS status page?
It's the same info - it just changes all blues to yellows and all yellows to reds. :)
Pretty funny actually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting that west-2 was quicker to create the incident (despite the issue starting a bit later there, at least by our experience), and while they both "identified" at the same time, west-2 also waited longer to call it resolved. I assume there are different teams responsible for each, is the west-2 team just more on top of things?
West-2 also launched many years after us-east-1, so less legacy to deal with.
2. They don't really have much "legacy" stuff to deal with since they likely turn over racks quickly across their whole fleet and software deployments should be standardized, so any US-east-1 flakiness has to do with the fact that its where amazon houses their control planes often.
They really need to stop requiring SVPs or higher to show non-green status on the status page, as other HNers have revealed in last week's AWS post. It's effectively not a status page, and they could probably be sued if it can be demonstrated that X service was down but the status page showed green (since the SLA is based on status page). Should be automated and based on sample deployments running in every region and…
Is this a thing?
I tried to monitor services status using https://stop.lying.cloud , but they are also hosted to AWS, and down too.