51–60 of 223 posts
Man, I did not have "AWS us-east-1 will only have TWO 9s this year" on my bingo card.
For those of us who have been using AWS for almost 20 years now, I can't imagine why anyone would willingly choose us-east-1 for anything. It is the oldest, highest traffic, most critical path region and is subject to turbulence.
Man, I did not have "AWS us-east-1 will only have TWO 9s this year" on my bingo card.
Been a while since I worked in cloud but at least when I got out of it, the primitives where all shoring up to be generally very similar. Did multi cloud redundancy end up being too expensive? Tech didn't line up enough? No good business case? The elastic cloud story that never was? https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/pets-vs-cattle-the-elas... What happened?
This is what I call "fool's availability": reducing single points of failure (one cloud provider) without adding any actual redundancy. If you removed AWS/GCP/Azure/etc and just had 100 small providers scattered all over, the result would be hundreds of outages throughout the year, as opposed to one big outage every other year [in one region]. AWS is already way more reliable than any other provider. The real problem…
Man, I did not have "AWS us-east-1 will only have TWO 9s this year" on my bingo card.
For those of us who have been using AWS for almost 20 years now, I can't imagine why anyone would willingly choose us-east-1 for anything. It is the oldest, highest traffic, most critical path region and is subject to turbulence.
Not that I disagree with you, but maybe not for the reasons you say (:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies can architect their backends to be able to fail back to another region in case of outage, and either don't test it or don't bother to have it in place because they can just blame Amazon, and don't otherwise have an SLA for their service. To fix it, test your failback procedures. For everything else, there's nothing to fix, it's working by design.
> Companies can architect their backends to be able to fail back to another region in case of outage, and either don't test it or don't bother to have it in place because they can just blame Amazon, and don't otherwise have an SLA for their service. My CI was down for 2 hours this morning, despite not even being on AWS. We have a set of credentials on that host that we call assumeRole with and push to an S3 bucket, w…
One thing that AWS should do is provide an easier way to detect these hidden dependencies. You can do that with CloudTrail if you know how to do it (filter operations by region and check that none are in us-east-1), but a more explicit service would be nice.
If only there was a system of computers on the Internet that was distributed across the world where we could host things instead of all in one location. We could call it the "cloud".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also if you can't even do cross region, cross cloud won't happen
Cross region isn't simple when you have terabytes of storage in buckets in a region. Building services in other regions without that data doesn't really do any good. Maintaining instances in various regions is easy, but it's that data that complicates everything. If you need to use the instances in a different region because your main region is down, you still can't do anything because those cross region instances ca…
If there's an issue with relying only on AWS it has not been expressed in this outage.