3 ms·

> the idea that you can just pay opex to run in multiple regions and lay off your SREs, > That is not AWS's intent. Yet that's what all their produced literat

> the idea that you can just pay opex to run in multiple regions and lay off your SREs, > That is not AWS's intent. Yet that's what all their produced literature describes. > its FUD to suggest that somehow cloud vendors want to make money out of reliability. It's literally a selling point. Not sure how mentioning it is FUD. It's FUD (and rightly so) to point out that your cross-platform solution is likely less production-ready and reliable than AWS (in total) as a single point of failure.

jasonlotito 7y ago
> Yet that's what all their produced literature describes. No, it's not. I've read it. The Well Architected stuff is actually really good about not being AWS only. These are generally good principals to keep in mind regardless of which provider you go with. And that's how it's written, and that's how AWS teaches it in person (I've actually been through their Well Architected course). Yes, they use AWS tooling to teach it, but nothing about it requires AWS. So, no. You are completely wrong. > It's literally a selling point. Not sure how mentioning it is FUD. Because the pricing AWS has doesn't necessarily increase cost with increase reliability. Suggesting that you need to spend more money to increase reliability is FUD. > It's FUD (and rightly so) to point out that your cross-platform solution is likely less production-ready and reliable than AWS (in total) as a single point of failure. That's not what was pointed out. Rather, it was pointed out that you can get high reliability without resorting to multi-cloud and higher costs. For you to continue suggesting otherwise, you first have to start off by explaining why you think high availability can't be obtained using a single cloud provider.
- klodolph 7y ago
  > Because the pricing AWS has doesn't necessarily increase cost with increase reliability. Suggesting that you need to spend more money to increase reliability is FUD. I do not understand this statement. In general, it costs more to increase the reliability of a system. This includes both infrastructure cost and engineering cost. I also do not understand why this could be FUD. I don’t have any fear, uncertainty, or doubt when I pay more for better services. This is normal and expected. Conversely this means that I can save money if I identify components of my system with lower demands for infrastructure reliability.
- reallydude 7y ago
  > The Well Architected stuff While that is the topic, that is not what I was referencing. "produced literature" is a bit more expansive than that and casually accessible (eg https://media.amazonwebservices.com/architecturecenter/AWS_ac_ra_ftha_04.pdf https://media.amazonwebservices.com/architecturecenter/AWS_a...). If you're going to reply about how someone is wrong, please have the courtesy to digest the statements made. Lashing out with non-sequitors is not constructive, when you could take a statement in good faith and consider you misinterpreted it.

jasonlotito 7y ago

> Yet that's what all their produced literature describes. No, it's not. I've read it. The Well Architected stuff is actually really good about not being AWS only. These are generally good principals to keep in mind regardless of which provider you go with. And that's how it's written, and that's how AWS teaches it in person (I've actually been through their Well Architected course). Yes, they use AWS tooling to teach it, but nothing about it requires AWS. So, no. You are completely wrong. > It's literally a selling point. Not sure how mentioning it is FUD. Because the pricing AWS has doesn't necessarily increase cost with increase reliability. Suggesting that you need to spend more money to increase reliability is FUD. > It's FUD (and rightly so) to point out that your cross-platform solution is likely less production-ready and reliable than AWS (in total) as a single point of failure. That's not what was pointed out. Rather, it was pointed out that you can get high reliability without resorting to multi-cloud and higher costs. For you to continue suggesting otherwise, you first have to start off by explaining why you think high availability can't be obtained using a single cloud provider.

klodolph 7y ago
> Because the pricing AWS has doesn't necessarily increase cost with increase reliability. Suggesting that you need to spend more money to increase reliability is FUD. I do not understand this statement. In general, it costs more to increase the reliability of a system. This includes both infrastructure cost and engineering cost. I also do not understand why this could be FUD. I don’t have any fear, uncertainty, or doubt when I pay more for better services. This is normal and expected. Conversely this means that I can save money if I identify components of my system with lower demands for infrastructure reliability.
reallydude 7y ago
> The Well Architected stuff While that is the topic, that is not what I was referencing. "produced literature" is a bit more expansive than that and casually accessible (eg https://media.amazonwebservices.com/architecturecenter/AWS_ac_ra_ftha_04.pdf https://media.amazonwebservices.com/architecturecenter/AWS_a...). If you're going to reply about how someone is wrong, please have the courtesy to digest the statements made. Lashing out with non-sequitors is not constructive, when you could take a statement in good faith and consider you misinterpreted it.