4 ms·

Okay, I'm sorry you thought I said AWS was perfect and bug free. I didn't, however, say that. I said (implied, really) it's better than anything you could pos

Okay, I'm sorry you thought I said AWS was perfect and bug free. I didn't, however, say that. I said (implied, really) it's better than anything you could possibly home brew. Nothing you've said here changes that. Further, didn't I say that it's trading one set of issues for another? Or at least, I explicitly agreed with that. I feel like you didn't read what I wrote honestly, and kind of came in with your own agenda. All I ever said was that the issues you trade off are orchestration issues vs. operational issues, and operational issues are 10x harder than orchestration issues because you don't get to decide when to work on operational issues, you tend to have to deal with them when they happen.

frankchn 8y ago
You wrote “The point is with a managed service, none of your problems will be with the service.” What deathanatos wrote sounds awfully like problems with the service to me. I don’t think S3 taking 100+ seconds to respond to a GET request can be solved by orchestration alone.
- diminoten 8y ago
  It definitely can. Reasonable timeouts and redundant systems.
  - indigo945 8y ago
    It's amazing the length some people are willing to go to to defend AWS marketing slogans as a source of truth. I've seen vendor lock-in before, but AWS seems to be unique in that people actually enjoy working with a vendor whose services go down randomly to the point where they blame themselves for not being "fault-tolerant". Guess what, if your service is not required to be up because the consuming service is super tolerant to it timing out after 140 seconds, self-hosting it becomes even more of a no-brainer. After all, you clearly need none of the redundancy AWS features.
    - diminoten 8y ago
      If it makes you feel better, everything I'm saying about AWS can be said about GCP as well. Sorry, but AWS/GCP is infinitely better at managing infrastructure than you or your company will ever be.

frankchn 8y ago

You wrote “The point is with a managed service, none of your problems will be with the service.” What deathanatos wrote sounds awfully like problems with the service to me. I don’t think S3 taking 100+ seconds to respond to a GET request can be solved by orchestration alone.

diminoten 8y ago
It definitely can. Reasonable timeouts and redundant systems.
- indigo945 8y ago
  It's amazing the length some people are willing to go to to defend AWS marketing slogans as a source of truth. I've seen vendor lock-in before, but AWS seems to be unique in that people actually enjoy working with a vendor whose services go down randomly to the point where they blame themselves for not being "fault-tolerant". Guess what, if your service is not required to be up because the consuming service is super tolerant to it timing out after 140 seconds, self-hosting it becomes even more of a no-brainer. After all, you clearly need none of the redundancy AWS features.
  - diminoten 8y ago
    If it makes you feel better, everything I'm saying about AWS can be said about GCP as well. Sorry, but AWS/GCP is infinitely better at managing infrastructure than you or your company will ever be.