← Back to context

Comment by bob1029

6 hours ago

I think if you need something more reliable than us-east-1 that you should be hosting on prem in facilities you own and operate.

There aren't that many businesses that truly can't handle the worst case (so far) AWS outage. Payment processing is the strongest example I can come up with that is incompatible with the SLA that a typical cloud provider can offer. Visa going down globally for even a few minutes might be worse than a small town losing its power grid for an entire week.

It's a hell of a lot easier to just go down with everyone else, apologize on Twitter, and enjoy a forced snow day. Don't let it frustrate you. Stay focused on the business and customer experience. It's not ideal to be down, but there are usually much bigger problems to solve. Chasing an extra x% of uptime per year is usually not worth a multicloud/region clusterfuck. These tend to be even less resilient on average.

4 comments

bob1029

Reply
jl6  5 hours ago

> worst case (so far)

It’s kind of amazing that after nearly 20 years of “cloud”, the worst case so far still hasn’t been all that bad. Outages are the mildest type of incident. A true cloud disaster would be something like a major S3 data loss event, or a compromise of the IAM control plane. That’s what it would take for people to take multi-region/multi-cloud seriously.