5 ms·
Bro, what're you so upset about in this thread? That people had different experiences than you with AWS..?
by goostavos 8y ago
Bro, what're you so upset about in this thread? That people had different experiences than you with AWS..?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- diminoten 8y agoI'm not upset, I'm simply pointing out that AWS isn't the problem in any of these examples, it's the various commenter's lack of understanding about how to work in AWS that's caused these problems. I don't think anyone is actually upset, do you? I certainly hope I haven't upset anyone... :/
- Dylan16807 8y agoWhen your hammer snaps in half, you don't blame yourself for not using two hammers. When the tool breaks under correct use, criticize the tool. Maybe the user should also have redundancy. The tool is still failing!
- diminoten 8y agoThis analogy is what snapped in half, not the hammer. It's more like if your hammer says right on it, "YOU NEED A SECOND HAMMER" and this is true of all hammers, it's still not the hammer's fault you didn't bring a second hammer.
- Dylan16807 8y agoAnd you're in other threads complaining that the people that had five hammers were still doing it wrong, that all the outages they report are fake somehow... Even when you're supposed to have redundancy, there are still certain failure rates that are acceptable and some that are not. And redundancy doesn't solve every problem either.
- diminoten 8y agoWhat? No I'm not. Literally no where has anyone said they've built a system with redundancies as recommended by AWS and still had problems. Of course there are unacceptable failure rates. AWS doesn't have them, and pretending like they do is simply lying to yourself to protect your own ego.