5 ms·
This might be an unpopular opinion but, Going multi region on AWS should be safe enough. If a multi region, multi service meltdown happens on AWS, it will fee
by eknkc 8y ago
This might be an unpopular opinion but,
Going multi region on AWS should be safe enough.
If a multi region, multi service meltdown happens on AWS, it will feel like most of the internet has gone down to a lot of users. Being such a catastrophic failure, I bet the service will be restored pretty fast, not in 3 days.
You could go multi cloud though. But when half of the internet struggles to work correctly, I’d not feel too bad about my small business’ downtime.
- hacknat 8y agoYeah, AWS has never had a global outage, Google has had 2 now.
- jorams 8y agoI'm not sure where you get this idea, but AWS has definitely had global outages. 1.5 years ago there were massive global issues with S3, causing even their own status dashboard to malfunction. edit: I stand corrected. Apparently the S3 outage wasn't global, though its effects were. Meanwhile, this outage has only really been noticeable to ops teams, since it doesn't affect existing nodes or anything outside GKE. It's definitely concerning and the fix is taking far too long, but as far as global outages go the impact is relatively minor.
- eknkc 8y agoThat only affected buckets on us-east-1.
- mcqueenjordan 8y agoOn February 28th, 2017, S3 had issues in us-east-1, not globally. It just happens that most customers create their buckets in us-east-1. (It’s the default bucket creation region.)
- sascha_sl 8y agoCorrect, but quite a few AWS services are built on S3, and some apparently weren't using buckets per region.
- Twirrim 8y agoBuckets creation/deletion is a global operation, namespaces are all global for it. When us-east-1 goes down, so does bucket creation. All other operations proceed merrily, but yeah as we see over and over again, whenever us-east-1 has an outage everything seems to shit the bed because they've built everything out in us-east-1. Hopefully us-east-2 is starting to eat in to that.
- jsjohnst 8y agoThis is correct (or at least was a couple years ago).
- engineeringwoke 8y agoI worked at a company that was highly dependent on us-east at the time. We survived. This is very different
- thaumasiotes 8y ago> If a multi region, multi service meltdown happens on AWS, it will feel like most of the internet has gone down to a lot of users. Being such a catastrophic failure, I bet the service will be restored pretty fast, not in 3 days. Additionally, from a "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" perspective, you're unlikely to catch much blame from your users for going down when everyone else was down too.
- owenmarshall 8y ago> You could go multi cloud though. Multi cloud is almost always more pain than gain. You’d spend time and effort abstracting away the value that a cloud provider brings in canned services. Hell, multi region is often more than many workloads need.
- halbritt 8y agoMy entire infrastructure is on k8s which should make multi-cloud easy... Nope.
- scarface74 8y agoSo you’re not using any managed services?
- halbritt 8y agoOther than kubernetes and object storage, no.
- eknkc 8y agoIt could work then. We had the same setup. Also, we store everything on S3 but there is a lambda function that pushes new objects to Google Cloud storage too. We figured, storage is cheap so we can duplicate things and it will make moving to GCP a lot easier. This was a while back though. Now we depend on a lot more AWS stuff.
- halbritt 8y agoAt one point, I was maintaining clusters in AWS, Azure, and GCP. It was a more work than I anticipated, for very little benefit. Cluster administration and identity management are unique to each provider and fairly challenging to get right.