4 ms·

I wonder if AWS will make more or less money from these outages? Will large players flee because of excessive instability? Or will smaller players go from sing

I wonder if AWS will make more or less money from these outages? Will large players flee because of excessive instability? Or will smaller players go from single-AZ to more expensive multi-AZ? My guess is that no-one will leave and lots of single-AZ tenants who should be multi-AZ will use this as the impetus to do it. Honestly, having events like this is probably good for the overall resilience of distributed systems. It's like an immune system, you don't usually fail in the same way repeatedly.

andy_ppp 5y ago
* Free chaos monkey installed in every AZ
- jjav 5y ago
  > * Free chaos monkey installed in every AZ Only during this beta period, AWS will start charging for this feature soon enough.
  - jedberg 5y ago
    We (Netflix) begged them for years to create a Chaos Monkey that we could pay for. There were things we just couldn't do ourselves, like simulate a power pull or just drop all network packets on the bare metal. I guess not enough people asked.
    - kortex 5y ago
      CMaaS sounds amazing for resiliency engineering. There's so much I want to be doing to perturb our stack, but I don't know all the ways stuff can go wrong. Sure I can ddos it, kick services and servers offline, etc, but that's what, a few dozen failure modes? Expertise in chaos would be valuable by itself. Not to mention being able to shake parts of the system I normally can't touch. Side note: terraform is pretty good for causing various kinds of chaos, deliberately or otherwise.
s_dev 5y ago
>I wonder if AWS will make more or less money from these outages? There is no possibility that outages are good for AWS. Nor is there more money to be made from "publicity" of the outages.
- moralestapia 5y ago
  I think GP has a point with, >Or will smaller players go from single-AZ to more expensive multi-AZ?
  - s_dev 5y ago
    No -- if they needed to they already would have migrated to a multi-region. If they don't need it -- they won't have. The reason is simple -- it's expensive as you say. I'm not a fanboi or evangelist of AWS either -- I do have pet theories they named their products with shit names in order to make more money by making AWS skills less transferable to Google Cloud etc. S3 should be Amazon FTP, RDS should be Amazon SQL etc.
    - apetresc 5y ago
      > S3 should be Amazon FTP I... don't think you know what S3 is. Or maybe what FTP is. (Also S3, EC2, RDS, etc. were named long before GCP had competing services)
    - Cederfjard 5y ago
      You’re saying businesses always make the right decisions and never put them off?
    - hagbarddenstore 5y ago
      S3 is Simple Storage Service RDS is Relational Data Service EC2 is Elastic Compute Cloud All of these make sense. If you're gonna complain about names, at least pick the really sucky ones, like Athena, Snowball, etc.
    - ketzo 5y ago
      I mean, lots of people put off doing something expensive but safer just because it’s expensive, but rethink after the consequences show.
gjvr 5y ago
I would not go multiple Availability Zone within the same Infra/Cloud provider...
jorblumesea 5y ago
No one just "moves off" AWS. Once your apps are spaghetti coded with lambdas, buckets and all sorts of stuff, it's basically impossible to get off. More than likely, as you noticed, it will increase spending since multi-AZ/multi-region will become the norm.
ransom1538 5y ago
"Or will smaller players go from single-AZ to more expensive multi-AZ" Yes! When you have a service interruption pay 2x more! With a region down I am sure other regions wont have any interruptions either! /s
kenhwang 5y ago
If my company is any indication, they're going to make more money since everyone will simply check the multi-AZ or multi-region checkboxes they didn't before and throw more money at the problem instead of doing proper resiliency engineering themselves.
- gizmodo59 5y ago
  It doesn’t matter how much of resiliency engineering you do. Having everything in a single AZ is a risk. If this is acceptable then it’s fine if not you need to think of multi az from day 1.
  - dogecoinbase 5y ago
    Auth0 ran in six AZs in two regions[1] and went down today[2], because they picked the wrong two regions. How many regions and AZs should someone pay for before they get reliability? 1: https://auth0.com/blog/auth0-architecture-running-in-multiple-cloud-providers-and-regions/ https://auth0.com/blog/auth0-architecture-running-in-multipl... 2: https://twitter.com/auth0/status/1471159935597793290 https://twitter.com/auth0/status/1471159935597793290
    - brewdad 5y ago
      At a minimum they should have chosen regions not in the same time zone or general geographic area. US-West 1 and US-West 2 might well be safeguarding against a server failure but is not a disaster plan. If your customers are global, choosing multiple continents is probably prudent.
  - Corrado 5y ago
    Whelp, I guess you're not using Cognito then. It has no user account syncing feature so you can't have a user group in more than one region. Grrrrr!
urthor 5y ago
The actual answer? In the next 5 calendar years the bottom line will still grow. However, the brand damage means they permananently lose market share. Which impacts their growth ceiling.

andy_ppp 5y ago

* Free chaos monkey installed in every AZ

jjav 5y ago
> * Free chaos monkey installed in every AZ Only during this beta period, AWS will start charging for this feature soon enough.
- jedberg 5y ago
  We (Netflix) begged them for years to create a Chaos Monkey that we could pay for. There were things we just couldn't do ourselves, like simulate a power pull or just drop all network packets on the bare metal. I guess not enough people asked.
  - kortex 5y ago
    CMaaS sounds amazing for resiliency engineering. There's so much I want to be doing to perturb our stack, but I don't know all the ways stuff can go wrong. Sure I can ddos it, kick services and servers offline, etc, but that's what, a few dozen failure modes? Expertise in chaos would be valuable by itself. Not to mention being able to shake parts of the system I normally can't touch. Side note: terraform is pretty good for causing various kinds of chaos, deliberately or otherwise.

s_dev 5y ago

>I wonder if AWS will make more or less money from these outages? There is no possibility that outages are good for AWS. Nor is there more money to be made from "publicity" of the outages.

moralestapia 5y ago
I think GP has a point with, >Or will smaller players go from single-AZ to more expensive multi-AZ?
- s_dev 5y ago
  No -- if they needed to they already would have migrated to a multi-region. If they don't need it -- they won't have. The reason is simple -- it's expensive as you say. I'm not a fanboi or evangelist of AWS either -- I do have pet theories they named their products with shit names in order to make more money by making AWS skills less transferable to Google Cloud etc. S3 should be Amazon FTP, RDS should be Amazon SQL etc.
  - apetresc 5y ago
    > S3 should be Amazon FTP I... don't think you know what S3 is. Or maybe what FTP is. (Also S3, EC2, RDS, etc. were named long before GCP had competing services)
  - Cederfjard 5y ago
    You’re saying businesses always make the right decisions and never put them off?
  - hagbarddenstore 5y ago
    S3 is Simple Storage Service RDS is Relational Data Service EC2 is Elastic Compute Cloud All of these make sense. If you're gonna complain about names, at least pick the really sucky ones, like Athena, Snowball, etc.
  - ketzo 5y ago
    I mean, lots of people put off doing something expensive but safer just because it’s expensive, but rethink after the consequences show.

gjvr 5y ago

I would not go multiple Availability Zone within the same Infra/Cloud provider...

jorblumesea 5y ago

No one just "moves off" AWS. Once your apps are spaghetti coded with lambdas, buckets and all sorts of stuff, it's basically impossible to get off. More than likely, as you noticed, it will increase spending since multi-AZ/multi-region will become the norm.

ransom1538 5y ago

"Or will smaller players go from single-AZ to more expensive multi-AZ" Yes! When you have a service interruption pay 2x more! With a region down I am sure other regions wont have any interruptions either! /s

kenhwang 5y ago

If my company is any indication, they're going to make more money since everyone will simply check the multi-AZ or multi-region checkboxes they didn't before and throw more money at the problem instead of doing proper resiliency engineering themselves.

gizmodo59 5y ago
It doesn’t matter how much of resiliency engineering you do. Having everything in a single AZ is a risk. If this is acceptable then it’s fine if not you need to think of multi az from day 1.
- dogecoinbase 5y ago
  Auth0 ran in six AZs in two regions[1] and went down today[2], because they picked the wrong two regions. How many regions and AZs should someone pay for before they get reliability? 1: https://auth0.com/blog/auth0-architecture-running-in-multiple-cloud-providers-and-regions/ https://auth0.com/blog/auth0-architecture-running-in-multipl... 2: https://twitter.com/auth0/status/1471159935597793290 https://twitter.com/auth0/status/1471159935597793290
  - brewdad 5y ago
    At a minimum they should have chosen regions not in the same time zone or general geographic area. US-West 1 and US-West 2 might well be safeguarding against a server failure but is not a disaster plan. If your customers are global, choosing multiple continents is probably prudent.
- Corrado 5y ago
  Whelp, I guess you're not using Cognito then. It has no user account syncing feature so you can't have a user group in more than one region. Grrrrr!

urthor 5y ago

The actual answer? In the next 5 calendar years the bottom line will still grow. However, the brand damage means they permananently lose market share. Which impacts their growth ceiling.