4 ms·
It's sort of counter-intuitive, but taking responsibility for something (even if it's not directly your fault) often has the effect of deflecting some of the an
by jarin 16y ago
It's sort of counter-intuitive, but taking responsibility for something (even if it's not directly your fault) often has the effect of deflecting some of the anger from your customers/clients/boss/etc.
Personally, I prefer to just get the blame part out of the way by taking responsibility and concentrate on the important things: fixing the problem and making sure it doesn't happen again.
I think that deep down, people aren't that concerned with who's fault it was. They just want to know that someone is going to fix it.
- ghshephard 16y agoThe reason why you don't want to take responsibility, is that the liability comes along with that. If Heroku took the position that the AWS outage was a force de majeure, then their liability for recompense to their customers would have been minimized. By suggesting they take responsibility, they also are in a position where they have to make good for all of the downtime their customers experienced. Short term - that will be an expensive decision. Long term, I think it's the right thing to do. It certainly builds up my confidence level in them.
- kowsik 16y agoAs a PaaS vendor, they are supposed to abstract away from IaaS failures. And they were not to use a single region to host all their apps. I love Heroku and will continue to use them as long as I have the option to add affinity to my dynos and workers to spread across multiple regions of my choice. Coupled with anycast DNS support, this will be a very compelling offering, if they can pull it off. During the outage, all of our scale engines (http://blitz.io http://blitz.io) and our CouchDB cluster across the other AWS regions held up, but since the web-tier was down, the whole app went down.