Live data from Hacker News

Facebook-owned sites were down

facebook.com

761–770 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook-owned sites were down

#761

There's still no connectivity to Facebook's DNS servers: > traceroute a.ns.facebook.com traceroute to a.ns.facebook.com (129.134.30.12), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 dsldevice.attlocal.net (192.168.1.254) 0.484 ms 0.474 ms 0.422 ms 2 107-131-124-1.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (107.131.124.1) 1.592 ms 1.657 ms 1.607 ms 3 71.148.149.196 (71.148.149.196) 1.676 ms 1.697 ms 1.705 ms 4 12.242.105.110 (12.242.105.110)…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook-owned sites were down

#762
I would have thought that these companies that are richer then $GOD would have (virtual) instances of at least the previous stable version available for situations such as this. It would at least keep their damn doors open and internal communications systems going... Maybe they'll NOW think of such things? What's the cliche, penny wise and pound foolish? Or is it, no need to listen to experienced Network Designers? I can never remember...

Re: Facebook-owned sites were down

#763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't fathom how they didn't plan for this. In any business of size, you have to change configuration remotely on a regular basis, and can easily lock yourself out on a regular basis. Every single system has a local user with a random password that we can hand out for just this kind of circumstance...

Another Monday morning at a boring datacenter job, i bet they weren't even there yet at 830 when the phones started ringing.

There should be 24/7 on-site rotations. I wonder if physical presence was cut on account of COVID?

Re: Facebook-owned sites were down

#764

There's still no connectivity to Facebook's DNS servers: > traceroute a.ns.facebook.com traceroute to a.ns.facebook.com (129.134.30.12), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 dsldevice.attlocal.net (192.168.1.254) 0.484 ms 0.474 ms 0.422 ms 2 107-131-124-1.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (107.131.124.1) 1.592 ms 1.657 ms 1.607 ms 3 71.148.149.196 (71.148.149.196) 1.676 ms 1.697 ms 1.705 ms 4 12.242.105.110 (12.242.105.110)…

I just got off a short pre-interview conversation with a manager at Instagram and he had to dial in with POTS. I got the impression that things are very broken internally.

Re: Facebook-owned sites were down

#765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My suspicion is that since a lot of internal comms runs through the FB domain and since everyone is still WFH, then its probably a massive issue just to get people talking to each other to solve the problem.

LOL - score one against building out all tooling internally (a la Amazon and apparently Facebook too)

The rate at which some amazon services lately go done because other AWS services went down proves that this is an unsustainable house of cards anyways.

Re: Facebook-owned sites were down

#766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know how true it is but a few reports claim employees can’t get into the building with their badges.

Link to such claims here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28750894 I have no doubt that the publicly published post-mortem report (if there even is one) will be heavily redacted in comparison to the internal-only version. But I very much want to see said hypothetical report anyway. This kind of infrastructural stuff fascinates me. And I would hope there would be some lessons in said report that even small time o…

I think the real take away is that no one has this figured out.

A small company has to keep all of its customers happy (or at least be responsive when issues arise, at a bare minimum).

Massive companies deal in error budgets, where a fraction of a percent can still represent millions of users.

Re: Facebook-owned sites were down

#767
post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our security team complained that we have some services like monitoring or SSH access to some Jump Hosts accessible without a VPN because VPN should be mandatory to access all internal services. I'm afraid once comply we could be in similar situation where Facebook is now...

But you have two independent VPNs right, using different technologies on different internet handoffs in very different parts of your network, right?

Fundamentally, how is a 2nd independent VPN into your network a different attack surface than a single, well-secured ssh jumphost? When you're using them for narrow emergency access to restore the primary VPN, both are just "one thing" listening on the wire, and it's not like ssh isn't a well-understood commodity.

Re: Facebook-owned sites were down

#768
post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the same problem as when GMail goes down and Googlers can't reach each other? I guess good decentralized public communication services could solve those issues for everybody.

Googler here - my opinions are my own, not representing the company at the lowest level in case of severe outage we resort to IRC, Plain Old Telephone Service and, sometimes, stick-it notes taped to windows...

Around here we use Slack for primary communications, Google Hangouts (or Chat or whatever they call it now) as secondary, and we keep an on-call list with phone numbers in our main Git repo, so everyone has it checked out on their laptop, so if the SHTF, we can resort to voice and/or SMS.

I remembered to publish my cell phone's real number on the on-call list rather than just my Google Voice number since if Hangouts is down, Google Voice might be too.

Re: Facebook-owned sites were down

#769

There's still no connectivity to Facebook's DNS servers: > traceroute a.ns.facebook.com traceroute to a.ns.facebook.com (129.134.30.12), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 dsldevice.attlocal.net (192.168.1.254) 0.484 ms 0.474 ms 0.422 ms 2 107-131-124-1.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (107.131.124.1) 1.592 ms 1.657 ms 1.607 ms 3 71.148.149.196 (71.148.149.196) 1.676 ms 1.697 ms 1.705 ms 4 12.242.105.110 (12.242.105.110)…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN