91–100 of 103 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon.com retail website does not run on AWS.
It runs 100% on AWS. Not all of amazon runs on AWS though, since they use a service oriented architecture, but many of the services also run on AWS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK the "Amazon runs on AWS" meme was originally a line of pure marketing tripe.
Incorrect, Amazon.com runs on AWS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5588012
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's the point. Most people don't need anything that well-engineered. Compared to more traditional hosting solutions from quality providers, AWS has terrible uptime and at a much higher cost for the same amount of resources. Two VPS'es from two different providers in a simple failover configuration with an anycast DNS solution would be simpler, cheaper, and much more reliable.
Wow, apparently that last comment really hit a nerve, as several people decided to downvote it, but not a single person actually refuted any of what I said. I was under the impression that downvotes were more to be used against trolling or flamebaiting, and not just opinions that people disagreed with. Considering everything I said is quite easy to verify as being true, this downvoting just strikes me as kind of inte…
I know that almost all of my downtime comes from when I overengineer things. And I don't need to "patch my kernel" because my OS doesn't have kernel holes once a week. Linux isn't the only Unix OS out there.
Today, a lot of sysadmins believe that "LAMP" is a synonym for webserver, and consequently there are a bunch of webservers serving static content on a machine with way too many moving parts. Complexity is bad.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler." -- Albert Einstein
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A while ago, someone claiming to have worked at Amazon said that downtime doesn't really affect things as much as you'd think. He said most people simply just come back later. Brick and mortar stores found that out ages ago. They were closed for large parts of the day/night and the customers just came back the next day. If people didn't leave Tumblr and Twitter, with their constant massive outages (at some point in…
I doubt many would leave Amazon permanently because of a service outage, but it probably does cost them something in impulse purchases, if the impulsive desire for the item passes during the downtime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heroku is up: http://cl.ly/image/0B0U1K3Z342R . Conversely, when AWS had issues, Amazon.com was not impacted. Amazon.com != AWS. I'm curious to know when AWS or Amazon.com innovations impact each other, or which one leads. I'd rather it be Amazon.com.
Apparently, Amazon.com switched to AWS in 2011 http://www.quora.com/Amazon/Does-Amazon-com-use-Amazon-AWS .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's the point. Most people don't need anything that well-engineered. Compared to more traditional hosting solutions from quality providers, AWS has terrible uptime and at a much higher cost for the same amount of resources. Two VPS'es from two different providers in a simple failover configuration with an anycast DNS solution would be simpler, cheaper, and much more reliable.
Wow, apparently that last comment really hit a nerve, as several people decided to downvote it, but not a single person actually refuted any of what I said. I was under the impression that downvotes were more to be used against trolling or flamebaiting, and not just opinions that people disagreed with. Considering everything I said is quite easy to verify as being true, this downvoting just strikes me as kind of inte…
OP responded to "Amazon.com is down" with "this is a lesson in over-engineering" - which it isn't, because Amazon.com is most certainly not overengineered for its purpose (I've seen the code with my own two eyes).
Your response is "not everyone needs extensively engineered systems", which is true, but is a non-sequitor from the previous posts.
A while ago, someone claiming to have worked at Amazon said that downtime doesn't really affect things as much as you'd think. He said most people simply just come back later. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5147461 [Edit: That being said, there's also the statistic that every 100ms of latency costs Amazon 1%. Imagine what 20+ minutes of "latency" would do. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=273900 ]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A while ago, someone claiming to have worked at Amazon said that downtime doesn't really affect things as much as you'd think. He said most people simply just come back later. Brick and mortar stores found that out ages ago. They were closed for large parts of the day/night and the customers just came back the next day. If people didn't leave Tumblr and Twitter, with their constant massive outages (at some point in…
Tumblr and Twitter have orders of magnitude fewer users than Amazon.
So I seriously doubt Amazon has "orders of magnitude more users" that Twitter. For Tumblr, maybe, but I doubt that too (maybe just one order of magnitude for it).
Besides, all that's orthogonal to my point. Except if you mean that the reason that Twitter and Tumblr have less users than Amazon is that they left those services due to outages.