3 ms·

With short term outages like this your probably right that a single point of failure doesn't matter. It's the longer term outages that are the problem. That's

With short term outages like this your probably right that a single point of failure doesn't matter. It's the longer term outages that are the problem. That's because we start talking about knock on effects. It's not really a problem if your supplier (and all others) have a short term issue (assuming you don't run super lean). It may be a headache if your supplier has a longer term issue while you set up another supplier (or use your less desired one) but it's not a disaster. It's a big problem if all suppliers are down for more than a short time. I'd assume people seeing this as a market failure are talking about it in the "this highlights the problem" kind of way, not the "this event was a true disaster" way.

robomc 5y ago
Sure. But again, I feel like using a "big, everyone uses it" kind of supplier is the best mitigation of the "what if I have to replace this" problem. If a massive vendor shutters or has a long term failure, at least you're in the same boat as a bunch of experts, which is a much better place to be than "my obscure or self-rolled solution is now orphaned / hacked / broken". The unspoken assumption always seems to be "my self-configured solution will have fewer and/or shorter issues than the massive publicly traded solution that everyone uses" but that seems ... very incorrect. Also... a reverse proxy / CDN always is a single point of failure. The question is... is it a single point of failure that you personally own. In my opinion shared single points of failure are desirable. It's just obviously more efficient.