3 ms·
It's interesting how AWS outage didn't take down Amazon.com.
by lubos 14y ago
It's interesting how AWS outage didn't take down Amazon.com.
- heretohelp 14y agoThat would be because Amazon.com doesn't use AWS.
- zhoutong 14y agoNo, it doesn't. Even the name servers of Amazon.com belong to UltraDNS and Dynect, instead of their own Route 53.
- heretohelp 14y agoI've always found the double-standard amusing :)
- sandfox 14y agoRoute53 uses UltraDNS.
- zhoutong 14y agoNo it's wrong. > "I also wanted to clarify that Route 53 is an Amazon-built and operated service. It is not a re-branding of a third party DNS service. Over time you'll see various parts of Amazon move over to use Route 53." https://forums.aws.amazon.com/message.jspa?messageID=209251#209251 https://forums.aws.amazon.com/message.jspa?messageID=209251#...
- revertts 14y agoNot correct: http://www.slideshare.net/AmazonWebServices/closing-keynote-migratingamazoncomtoaws http://www.slideshare.net/AmazonWebServices/closing-keynote-...
- notmyhnname 14y agoWhile what you say was certainly true when AWS launched, today it is not. Much of Amazon is hosted in an EC2 VPC connected to the traditional prod network. This includes all of retail website and (today) many of the services that power said website. Other AWS services are also used frequently and heavily. AWS use is strongly encouraged for any new projects.
- wdewind 14y agoActually temporarily it did. At least for me for about 5 min amazon.com was unreachable yesterday when i first read about this. was around 10pm EST i believe.