3 ms·
There's "separate infrastructure" such as separate domain names, and then there's "host the status page on AWS". Normal "separate infrastructure" would have fa
by powera 5y ago
There's "separate infrastructure" such as separate domain names, and then there's "host the status page on AWS".
Normal "separate infrastructure" would have failed here. And an AWS-hosted status page wouldn't have been of any use; apart from "everything is down" the status page wouldn't have known anything either. Simply having the status page be down is all the signal necessary for such a catastrophic outage.
- Scoundreller 5y agoIt can be nice to know what’s going on, or at least provide ETAs if known. At least that’s what I do for my users when things go down. Not sure if FB would provide any actionable info, but can be nice to know if you should hang around for the service to return or take a nap to be ready for when it does return.
- powera 5y agoIf you're as big as Facebook, and your outage is this bad, the only type of communication to do is having a Vice President talking directly to CNN or the New York Times.
- munk-a 5y agoIn this modern era we've got things like downdetector that I've found to be quite a bit more useful that status pages - if lots of people are bitching about your servers being unresponsive you're probably not being trolled most of the time.
- qeternity 5y ago> Normal "separate infrastructure" would have failed here. Uh, no? A status page on truly independent infra would not have shared the same BGP announcements. > And an AWS-hosted status page wouldn't have been of any use Well that's a matter of opinion, but I would think it's certainly better than having to provide updates via Twitter.