3 ms·
My questions are: - Why aren't they committing to using geographically dispersed AWS instances? - Why aren't they leveraging Salesforce's infrastructure at al
by goronbjorn 14y ago
My questions are:
- Why aren't they committing to using geographically dispersed AWS instances?
- Why aren't they leveraging Salesforce's infrastructure at all?
- rdl 14y agoYou may not have noticed the 2x multi-hour outages Salesforce has had in the past 2 weeks, at least one due to "power problems", the more recent of which took down their fucking status site too.
- goronbjorn 14y agoMy point wasn't that Salesforce's infrastructure is reliable (although they arguably have more pressure than most companies to be so), just that there is a separate resource they could be utilizing as a backup/in addition to AWS that they currently are not using.
- antoko 14y agoPresumably if they were having to deal with a power outage you could reliably assume that that fucking status was set to "not fucking"
- dangrossman 14y agoCommitting to geographically dispersed anything is a hard problem. How will apps perform when their front-end is in Virginia and their back-end is in California? How will fail-over work when it involves moving a 100GB database from Dallas to Washington, instead of between racks in the same building over a private gigabit network?
- goronbjorn 14y agoI agree that it's a difficult problem, but it's Heroku's obligation to solve those problems. You can't position yourself like this: > Heroku takes full responsibility for your app's health, keeping it up and running through thick and thin and not commit to solving hard problems like geographically dispersed EC2 instances. Resource constraints, to be fair, aren't an acceptable excuse at this point. They aren't a floundering startup. They're a part of a multibillion dollar company.