81–90 of 98 posts
I feel like you can't really say you're in the green when you still have customers unable to use your service. My instance is still stuck in failover. "9:39 AM PDT Networking connectivity has been restored to most of the affected RDS Database Instances in the single Availability Zone in the US-EAST-1 region. New instance launches are completing normally. We are continuing to work on restoring connectivity to the rema…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm paying like 2,300 a month and even something basic like failover isnt working. I'm not happy.
At $2300/month you could redundantly colo or lease VERY powerful servers in 3-4 data centers around the country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm paying like 2,300 a month and even something basic like failover isnt working. I'm not happy.
At $2300/month you could redundantly colo or lease VERY powerful servers in 3-4 data centers around the country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At $2300/month you could redundantly colo or lease VERY powerful servers in 3-4 data centers around the country.
Except when you have to factor in all the plane flights to replace broken HDD. And the risk of not making it in time for when it breaks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) because AWS East is so much cheaper (and none of us like spending money) 2) AppFog actually is multi region (and multi IaaS as well)
Oregon is same as AWS East, seems to have a smaller set of boxes, have gotten errors in the past about not having any more servers to allocate.
Anyone have any details on why us-east-1 seems to be less reliable than the other regions? Is it the oldest?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm under the impression it's the most used.
It probably is the most used, being a cheaper alternative to us-west, but are you suggesting it fails more because it is used more? It does seem that the big AWS outages (in the us) have been concentrated in us-east. I have wondered if it just because us-east is newer so they haven't had has much time to work things out, or that the us-west team is a little better? edit: btw, I am not dismissing "used more" as a vali…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm under the impression it's the most used.
It probably is the most used, being a cheaper alternative to us-west, but are you suggesting it fails more because it is used more? It does seem that the big AWS outages (in the us) have been concentrated in us-east. I have wondered if it just because us-east is newer so they haven't had has much time to work things out, or that the us-west team is a little better? edit: btw, I am not dismissing "used more" as a vali…
Worst part of this outage: paying for a multi-az RDS instance and having failover totally, completely, fail.
Do we all agree that we are completely over AWS-EAST now? It's NOT worth the cost savings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
currently, it is a limited beta. Also, it looks to be more expensive.
Actually, if you do the normalization to make it apples to apples (and adjust for the difference in RAM) it looks price competitive. My numbers make it look slightly more expensive than AWS EAST (teh suck) and slightly less expensive than AWS WEST.