4 ms·

You act as if that is a bug not a feature. As hypothetically someone who is responsible for my site staying up, I would much rather blame AWS than myself. Bes

You act as if that is a bug not a feature. As hypothetically someone who is responsible for my site staying up, I would much rather blame AWS than myself. Besides none of your customers are going to blame you if every other major site is down.

unethical_ban 1y ago
As someone who hypothetically runs a critical service, I would rather my service be up than down.
- raw_anon_1111 1y ago
  And you have never had downtime? If your data center went down - then what?
  - unethical_ban 1y ago
    I'm saying the importance is on uptime, not on who to blame, when services are critical. You don't have one data center with critical services. You know lots of companies are still not in the cloud, and they manage their own datacenters, and they have 2-3 of them. There are cost, support, availability and regulatory reasons not to be in the cloud for many parties.
tredre3 1y ago
> As hypothetically someone who is responsible for my site staying up, I would much rather blame AWS than myself. That's a very human sentiment, and I share it. That's why I don't swap my car wheels myself, I don't want to feel responsible if one comes loose on the highway and I cause an accident. But at the same time it's also appalling how low the bar has gotten. We're still the ones deciding that one cloud is enough. The down being "their" fault really shouldn't excuse that fact. Most services aren't important enough to need redundancy. But if yours is, and it goes down because you decided that one provider is enough, then your provider isn't solely at fault here and as a profession I wish we'd take more accountability.
- raw_anon_1111 1y ago
  How many businesses can’t afford to suffer any downtime though? But I’ve led enough cloud implementations where I discuss the cost and complexity between - multi-AZ (it’s almost free so why not), multi region , and theoretically multi cloud (never came up in my experience) and then cold, warm and hot standby, RTO and RPO, etc And for the most part, most businesses are fine with just multi-AZ as long as their data can survive catastrophe.

unethical_ban 1y ago

As someone who hypothetically runs a critical service, I would rather my service be up than down.

raw_anon_1111 1y ago
And you have never had downtime? If your data center went down - then what?
- unethical_ban 1y ago
  I'm saying the importance is on uptime, not on who to blame, when services are critical. You don't have one data center with critical services. You know lots of companies are still not in the cloud, and they manage their own datacenters, and they have 2-3 of them. There are cost, support, availability and regulatory reasons not to be in the cloud for many parties.

tredre3 1y ago

> As hypothetically someone who is responsible for my site staying up, I would much rather blame AWS than myself. That's a very human sentiment, and I share it. That's why I don't swap my car wheels myself, I don't want to feel responsible if one comes loose on the highway and I cause an accident. But at the same time it's also appalling how low the bar has gotten. We're still the ones deciding that one cloud is enough. The down being "their" fault really shouldn't excuse that fact. Most services aren't important enough to need redundancy. But if yours is, and it goes down because you decided that one provider is enough, then your provider isn't solely at fault here and as a profession I wish we'd take more accountability.

raw_anon_1111 1y ago
How many businesses can’t afford to suffer any downtime though? But I’ve led enough cloud implementations where I discuss the cost and complexity between - multi-AZ (it’s almost free so why not), multi region , and theoretically multi cloud (never came up in my experience) and then cold, warm and hot standby, RTO and RPO, etc And for the most part, most businesses are fine with just multi-AZ as long as their data can survive catastrophe.