4 ms·
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 s
by 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 agoIt definitely can. Reasonable timeouts and redundant systems.
- indigo945 8y agoIt'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 agoIf 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.