3 ms·

You weren't down because an Amazon engineer fat-fingered a maintenance command, you were down because you chose to put all of your eggs in one basket. The baske

You weren't down because an Amazon engineer fat-fingered a maintenance command, you were down because you chose to put all of your eggs in one basket. The basket you chose failed, and you had no redundancy basket to fail over to. Choosing a new basket to put all your eggs in isn't going to fix anything just because the new basket hasn't failed on you yet. Make smarter decisions. If being up on December 24 was really that important to you, you'd have had backup hosting in place with the ability to quickly fail over to it. You'll start being a better engineer when you quit blaming some poor bastard's bad luck for your failures and learn the real lesson from your downtime: you fucked up by not having high-availability hosting to meet your claimed high-availability needs. The worst thing Amazon could do is fire this guy. They've just paid a lot of money to have him learn from his mistake. They'd be fools to throw that hard-earned experience away.

niggler 14y ago
Interestingly enough a similar article on the front page scapegoated Windows Azure. People can't own up to the fact that customers don't really care if it's Amazon AWS or Heroku or some other platform that failed -- if your service is down, its your fault!
- msbarnett 14y ago
  > People can't own up to the fact that customers don't really care if it's Amazon AWS or Heroku or some other platform that failed -- if your service is down, its your fault! I don't, necessarily, have a problem with saying, without animosity, "we're down because our hosting provider is down". For many small businesses, being down when your hosting provider is down is an acceptable tradeoff -- your business simply isn't critical enough for it to be worth the costs of maintaining fail-over redundancy in case of primary hosting loss. That's totally fine. Most people probably don't want to pay the higher cost of having every service they use having the ability to survive their main host going down. A couple 9s of uptime is more than enough for the vast majority of businesses. What I have a problem is with people who were behaving as though they were fine with that tradeoff screaming about how they needed to be up when it comes time to pay in a little downtime for those cheaper hosting costs. Grow up and accept the tradeoffs you choose to make.
  - niggler 14y ago
    "people who were behaving as though they were fine with that tradeoff" I'm not sure who is to blame at this point -- is it the fault of the individual for not understanding uptime? is it the fault of the service for not articulating clearly what it means? Is it the fault of the industry for inculcating an unjustified sense of entitlement?
    - msbarnett 14y ago
      > I'm not sure who is to blame at this point -- is it the fault of the individual for not understanding uptime? is it the fault of the service for not articulating clearly what it means? Is it the fault of the industry for inculcating an unjustified sense of entitlement? I'm inclined to lean towards the third option. It ought to be obvious that there is no such thing as a perfect host, that in the limit your probability of being down at some point goes to 100% as your time hosted with a company increases. There's just a lot of entitlement and sloppy thinking out there. People believe that their $30 a month hosting ought to be magically invulnerable in ways it by the simple laws of physics cannot be. If you didn't explicitly choose to have multiple geographically separate hosts with a fail-over plan between them, then you were at the very least implicitly accepting that you were going to be down some of the time when (not if) your only host goes down. That's a fine and ok thing to choose, but I don't think you get to be mad at your host because you didn't clue in to the choice you were making.

niggler 14y ago

Interestingly enough a similar article on the front page scapegoated Windows Azure. People can't own up to the fact that customers don't really care if it's Amazon AWS or Heroku or some other platform that failed -- if your service is down, its your fault!

msbarnett 14y ago
> People can't own up to the fact that customers don't really care if it's Amazon AWS or Heroku or some other platform that failed -- if your service is down, its your fault! I don't, necessarily, have a problem with saying, without animosity, "we're down because our hosting provider is down". For many small businesses, being down when your hosting provider is down is an acceptable tradeoff -- your business simply isn't critical enough for it to be worth the costs of maintaining fail-over redundancy in case of primary hosting loss. That's totally fine. Most people probably don't want to pay the higher cost of having every service they use having the ability to survive their main host going down. A couple 9s of uptime is more than enough for the vast majority of businesses. What I have a problem is with people who were behaving as though they were fine with that tradeoff screaming about how they needed to be up when it comes time to pay in a little downtime for those cheaper hosting costs. Grow up and accept the tradeoffs you choose to make.
- niggler 14y ago
  "people who were behaving as though they were fine with that tradeoff" I'm not sure who is to blame at this point -- is it the fault of the individual for not understanding uptime? is it the fault of the service for not articulating clearly what it means? Is it the fault of the industry for inculcating an unjustified sense of entitlement?
  - msbarnett 14y ago
    > I'm not sure who is to blame at this point -- is it the fault of the individual for not understanding uptime? is it the fault of the service for not articulating clearly what it means? Is it the fault of the industry for inculcating an unjustified sense of entitlement? I'm inclined to lean towards the third option. It ought to be obvious that there is no such thing as a perfect host, that in the limit your probability of being down at some point goes to 100% as your time hosted with a company increases. There's just a lot of entitlement and sloppy thinking out there. People believe that their $30 a month hosting ought to be magically invulnerable in ways it by the simple laws of physics cannot be. If you didn't explicitly choose to have multiple geographically separate hosts with a fail-over plan between them, then you were at the very least implicitly accepting that you were going to be down some of the time when (not if) your only host goes down. That's a fine and ok thing to choose, but I don't think you get to be mad at your host because you didn't clue in to the choice you were making.