Tell HN: AWS appears to be down again

Post by miked85 » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

manquer wrote: post #411

ncallaway wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No point in investing in S3 and then doing it again yourself. I mean that's just obviously wrong, though. There is a point. > Either you don't trust the cloud and you can run NAS or equivalent (with s3 APIs easily today) much cheaper or trust them to keep your data safe and available. What if you trust the cloud 90%, and you trust yourself 90%, and you think it's likely that the failure cases between the two are li…

My point is if your redundancy is better than AWS then why pay for them ? If it not they why invest in your own?. You can argue that you protect against different threats than AWS does . So far I have not seen a meaningful argument of threats a on Prem protects differently than the cloud that you need both . Say for example your solution is to put all your data backups on the moon then it makes sense to do both, AWS…

Post by nh2 » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 5:24 PM UTC

nightpool wrote: post #494

Nextgrid wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true for on-prem infrastructure, but is all already handled for you if you rent servers from hosting providers such as OVH/Hetzner or even rent colocation space in an existing DC, and is still cheaper than the cloud equivalent (and as we saw recently, actually more reliable as well).

I've had way more networking and availability failures from Hetzner this year alone then I've ever seen from AWS. They regularly replace their networking switches without any redundancy, leaving entire DCs offline for hours. They're okay for hobby projects, but I would never host a business-critical site with them

Post by hinkley » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 5:26 PM UTC

zymhan wrote: post #473

fatnoah wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My last startup migrated from Verizon Terremark after the healthcare.gov fiasco several years ago. We also suffered from that massive outage and that was the final straw in migrating to AWS. At AWS, we built a few layers of redundant infrastructure with mulit-AZ availability within a region and then global availability across multiple regions. All this was done at roughly half the cost of the traditional hosting, eve…

Indeed, if you only deploy resources in us-east1, or any other single region, you're risking the occasional downtime. I'd wager that will still give you more uptime than a physically-hosted solution for the same cost.

Post by mbesto » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 5:30 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #419

mbesto wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The facilities team was about 6 people, average salary around $90k. Ok so $540k salaries + benefits, so ~$700k. Then you have transaction costs: - Annual salary increases - Any cost associated with people leaving (severance, hiring, recruiters, HR, HR systems) - Systems that run in the data center (logging, monitoring, etc.) - Procurement costs with changing costs in hardware (silicon shortages, etc.) - Security co…

Say all of those costs are $2,000,000, and you have 25,000 billable endpoints in the datacenter… you’re looking at less than $0.01/hour for that overhead on a unit basis. Obviously, there’s a huge capital investment component too that has to be incorporated. Those costs may be really high if you’re in a growth phase as you need to overbuy capacity. Just to be clear, I’m not arguing that on-prem is magically cheap. :)…

Post by wly_cdgr » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

smiths1999 wrote: post #466

aeonflux wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once had to argue that we still do need backup even though S3 has redundancy. They laughed when I mentioned a possible lock-up from AWS (even due to a mistake or whatever). I asked what if we delete data from app by mistake? They told me we need to be careful not to do that. I guess I am getting more and more tired of arrogant 25 years old programmers with 1-2 years in industry and no experience.

Maybe they are getting tired of arrogant older programmers assuming they cannot possibly be wrong. God forbid a 25 year old might actually have a good idea (and I am far removed from my 20s). Maybe having S3 redundancy wasn't the most important thing to be tackled? Does your company really need that complexity? Are you so big and such an important service that you cannot possibly risk going down or losing data?