4 ms·
> This seems to be getting slightly overblown in that thread. To be clear, this impacted one datacenter out of ten that make up one availability zone out of six
by kerkeslager 7y ago
> This seems to be getting slightly overblown in that thread. To be clear, this impacted one datacenter out of ten that make up one availability zone out of six in AWS’s us-east-1 region. So we are talking 2-3% at most of that region’s capacity was impacted.
For how many users was this 100% of their business?
Single-digit outage percentages for cloud services like AWS look like no big deal from the big perspective, which means that they often aren't a high priority. But when you're one of the customers in the 2-3%, it is a big deal, and you want it to be a high priority.
Small hosting providers may have only 3 9s of availability, but when your site goes down their world stops until it's fixed. I've seen reports of 5 9s of availability from Amazon, but when your site goes down, their alerts are still all green and they'll call you back at their leisure.
- gnur 7y agoHonestly, if you are running on a single AZ in aws you are setting yourself up for failure..
- acdha 7y ago> For how many users was this 100% of their business? … but they still chose to ignore all of the prominent warnings and architectural guidance, not to mention avoiding use of the services which have HA built-in. I mean, I'm sympathetic to anyone who had a bad day with a forced learning experience but it's not like this is some dark secret.
- kerkeslager 7y ago> but they still chose to ignore all of the prominent warnings and architectural guidance So that's it, blame the user and caveat emptor? > not to mention avoiding use of the services which have HA built-in. Many (all?) of these services tightly couple you to Amazon, so avoiding them is a very reasonable decision.
- acdha 7y ago> So that's it, blame the user and caveat emptor? If I sell you a loaf of bread and you complain that it's not a sandwich, is it anything else? > Many (all?) of these services tightly couple you to Amazon, so avoiding them is a very reasonable decision. That's just a cop-out: checking the “multi-AZ” box in RDS completely avoided this problem with zero lock-in. If you're deploying containers, you have multiple options which are portable and avoid this completely. If you're deploying EC2 instances, again you have options with very limited lock-in (e.g. auto-scaling with multiple AZs). More importantly, that's also a business decision: if you're that worried about lock-in you are accepting responsibility to operate the alternatives. For example, following industry-standard practice might suggest that you run everything in Kubernetes in multiple AZs, regions, or providers but it would never support running everything in a single AZ.
- skywhopper 7y agoNone if they had any multi-AZ capability at all.