Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Azure Outage

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 247 posts

Re: Microsoft Azure Outage

#91

Post by gerdesj »

hobo_mark wrote: post #60
hardware2win wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ive used gcp and ive been billed like 10% of minimal wage for setting GCPs demo with like 7 very simple microservices (i dont remember exactly) 4 times and every of them was running like 5 minutes after being deployed and then project was killed Shit is expensive as hell For the same money I could rent some weak linux box for a year Or something decent for a month Edit 10ms https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/micr…

I have to wonder what you were doing, I've been continuously hosting my own projects there for years and with the free tier they cost pennies per month to run.

"and with the free tier they cost pennies per month"

Is it free or not?

Re: Microsoft Azure Outage

#93

Post by oefrha »

saghm wrote: post #64
edf13 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's updated now - updates for service outages at this level generally need signoff form someone higher up the chain

Someone has to "approve" the status pages showing what's actually happening? From a customer perspective, it seems far worse to have status pages fail to reflect actual outages than to have them accidentally report an outage when there isn't one because no one really cares about what the status page says if they're not having issues. It's hard to see how the goal here could be anything other than trying to add plausi…

Exec approval for showing major outages on status dashboard is pretty much standard practice across large companies. The main differentiator is whether it’s approved within five minutes or two hours.

Re: Microsoft Azure Outage

#94

Post by gerdesj »

ibejoeb wrote: post #90
dsign wrote: post #34

This makes you wonder if some centralization patterns, i.e. Azure AD, are not a national security problem?

Azure AD is a nightmare. I don't know how many of you sign in to multiple tenants in the console, but it generally involves buying a new computer.

It involves a lot of private browsing sessions which is actually MS's recommendation!

What a PITA.

Re: Microsoft Azure Outage

#95

Post by deusex_ »

laacz wrote: post #65
dsign wrote: post #34

This makes you wonder if some centralization patterns, i.e. Azure AD, are not a national security problem?

Critical infrastructure cannot be reliant on a cloud (or internet availability, if possible). In most EU countries that's a law.

Do you have any good resource summarizing these laws?

Re: Microsoft Azure Outage

#96

Post by [deleted] »

dustedcodes wrote: post #18

Azure is the most developer hostile cloud environment. I have zero sympathy for people being affected by this because if you voluntarily use Azure then this is what you deserve. Sorry for being so miserable, but Azure has given me soooo much grief over the last 10 years that I'm just completely done with this shitshow of a platform.

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft Azure Outage

#97

Post by sofixa »

dx034 wrote: post #84

Shows that all these availability zones and regions don't really help if an outage can knock out a whole cloud provider. And that's not specific to Microsoft. The only way to really ensure uptime is to use two providers. Sadly, that's basically only possible with on-prem/colocation where traffic is cheap.

It's mostly Azure though that is badly designed to such an extent that multiple times there have been global outages. In general Azure availability, security (the only major cloud provider with not one but multiple cross-tenant security exploits) and usability are pretty terrible so it shouldn't be used for anything but saying "this is how it should not be done".

GCP had a similar thing once, where a BGP update knocked out their Asian regions.

AWS have never had a global outage. (And no, that time S3 in us-east-1 was down wasn't a global outage, the only customer code/workloads that were impacted was code interacting with S3 that didn't specify the region and had to rely on us-east-1 to determine it, and it didn't work anymore)

Re: Microsoft Azure Outage

#98

Post by madduci »

dustedcodes wrote: post #18

Azure is the most developer hostile cloud environment. I have zero sympathy for people being affected by this because if you voluntarily use Azure then this is what you deserve. Sorry for being so miserable, but Azure has given me soooo much grief over the last 10 years that I'm just completely done with this shitshow of a platform.

Many companies use Active Directory. The new kid in the block is Azure Active Directory (AAD), which is the evolution of the self-hosted Windows Servers.

Since many companies rely on it, especially for role base access to internal resources, you can't avoid it as a developer/employee.

Re: Microsoft Azure Outage

#99

Post by Dalewyn »

dx034 wrote: post #75
maushu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not the developers that choose the platform and Microsoft knows that.

They know how important developers are, that's why they bought Github. But developer experience is indeed one of the minor points of consideration when choosing a cloud vendor for large enterprise. Customer service, billing and integration into existing infrastructure is much more important.

>They know how important developers are,

Developers developers developers!

Re: Microsoft Azure Outage

#100

Post by remus »

saghm wrote: post #64
edf13 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's updated now - updates for service outages at this level generally need signoff form someone higher up the chain

Someone has to "approve" the status pages showing what's actually happening? From a customer perspective, it seems far worse to have status pages fail to reflect actual outages than to have them accidentally report an outage when there isn't one because no one really cares about what the status page says if they're not having issues. It's hard to see how the goal here could be anything other than trying to add plausi…

> it seems far worse to have status pages fail to reflect actual outages than to have them accidentally report an outage when there isn't one because no one really cares about what the status page says if they're not having issues.

I disagree. What if you're having issues and the status page is incorrectly reporting an incident? It would be easy to waste a load of time waiting for the status page to sort itself out, only to find out you've still got an issue.

Post reply on HN