It’s like all you people forgot how much shit broke before AWS. They have one major outage every few years and people lose their shit pretending they aren’t hitting the SLA or coming close.
How many banks didn’t work? Which ones? You have a source? Visa and MC were good all day here in the real world in the east coast.
Sounds like you’re just trying to exaggerate around an edge case that frankly isn’t the end of the world even if it were common for 4 hours a year
Why aren’t you blaming the bank for having redundancy outside a single DC? How many banks do you know if that were out susessfully using other providers that have a higher SLO/SLA?
I can see why your account is marked with two red marks on PieFed for low reputation, because man do you come off confrontational.
How many banks didn’t work? Which ones? You have a source?
Search engines exist. Use them before acting as if I"m making shit up.
The list of financial institutions that had issues, as far as I can tell from industry reporting and downdetector graphs, is Navy Federal Credit Union (~15 million members), Truist (~15 million customers), Chime (~8-9 million customers), Venmo (~60 million users), Ally Bank (~10 million customers), and Lloyds Banking group (~30 million customers).
Assuming no overlap, that’s nearly 140 million people that lost banking and money transfer access.
Sounds like you’re just trying to exaggerate around an edge case that frankly isn’t the end of the world even if it were common for 4 hours a year
The outage lasted for 15 hours in some cases, due to many AWS services recovering after the outage, yet having a backlog to work through, which took many more hours. Many services also depend on AWS in a manner where AWS coming back online doesn’t instantaneously restart service. These systems are complex, and not every company that relied on them could instantly start back up the moment the main outage was resolved, let alone when many services were still marked as impacted for hours and hours later as they worked through their backlog.
Why aren’t you blaming the bank for having redundancy outside a single DC? How many banks do you know if that were out susessfully using other providers that have a higher SLO/SLA?
I also blame them for not having additional redundancy. I blame both them for not having a fallback, and AWS for allowing such a major outage to happen. Shockingly, more than one party can be at fault.
I never argued that. I provided the reality of what they did.
I’m sorry the reality doesn’t align with how you think things should be.
You think everyone trying to make money is just stupid and has ignored some super reliable and cheap hosting because they want to gobble bezos cock? No, they solved challenging problems and made it a lot easier to stand up a reliable app.
I feel that you’re are very jaded over this subject, I truly felt it was a funny situation. No judgement from me
Yes, AWS has a lot of advantages and I do believe they usually provide a reliable service, but as with all centralised services when they go down a bunch of other stuff go with them and that should be avoided. Doesn’t make all the incredible engineers currently working in AWS stupid
No shit. I was DevOps at my last company and they were all in on AWS. In those 5 years we had one major outage. There was one other case of a particular service going down, forgot which one, but it mainly screwed DevOps and the db guys.
You’re talking to a bunch of young people who hate Bezos and by extension AWS. They have no idea what the internet was like before.
Personally I think the cost is outrageous, rather have my own hardware mirrored in geographically distant colos, but that doesn’t mean AWS isn’t amazing.
Eeehh, you’re literally suggesting that AWS added to the general stability and dependability of the internet in general
You have NO idea what you’re talking about
The internet was designed to survive nuclear war, talking about being dependable) and the entire idea was (and should continue to be) that you don’t rely on a single point of failure. Traffic should automatically route around dead nodes so that everything continues to flow. Decentralisation is key.
But of course with companies being companies and corporate doing what corporate does best (enshittify everything so that we make more monies) everything got centralized.
The centralization is an issue, but AWS is stable as hell. When I was first in IT, tech support, I had to explain to customers daily that, “No, your internet is fine, it’s just that particular website that’s down.”
And the centralization wouldn’t be a thing if AWS didn’t route all IAM services through us-east-1. My Lightsail in us-west-1 was fine yesterday.
I laugh every time AWS goes down. That’s what you fucking get, and don’t get me started on
us-east-1specifically.Actually can you start? Feels like an interesting talking point
It’s like all you people forgot how much shit broke before AWS. They have one major outage every few years and people lose their shit pretending they aren’t hitting the SLA or coming close.
Because hosting was more diverse before, so when shit happened it took out a couple of sites, not a quarter of the internet
And? God forbid we touch grass for 6 hours a year.
I touch grass every day. I want to do it on my own terms, not Amazon’s.
Agree. That’s not related to the point I was responding to though…
The outage also took down people’s banks, which stopped many of them from doing things like buying groceries 💀
I don’t think saying it’s good for us “touching grass” is a good argument here when AWS hosts such a substantial portion of all online services.
How many banks didn’t work? Which ones? You have a source? Visa and MC were good all day here in the real world in the east coast.
Sounds like you’re just trying to exaggerate around an edge case that frankly isn’t the end of the world even if it were common for 4 hours a year
Why aren’t you blaming the bank for having redundancy outside a single DC? How many banks do you know if that were out susessfully using other providers that have a higher SLO/SLA?
I can see why your account is marked with two red marks on PieFed for low reputation, because man do you come off confrontational.
Search engines exist. Use them before acting as if I"m making shit up.
The list of financial institutions that had issues, as far as I can tell from industry reporting and downdetector graphs, is Navy Federal Credit Union (~15 million members), Truist (~15 million customers), Chime (~8-9 million customers), Venmo (~60 million users), Ally Bank (~10 million customers), and Lloyds Banking group (~30 million customers).
Assuming no overlap, that’s nearly 140 million people that lost banking and money transfer access.
The outage lasted for 15 hours in some cases, due to many AWS services recovering after the outage, yet having a backlog to work through, which took many more hours. Many services also depend on AWS in a manner where AWS coming back online doesn’t instantaneously restart service. These systems are complex, and not every company that relied on them could instantly start back up the moment the main outage was resolved, let alone when many services were still marked as impacted for hours and hours later as they worked through their backlog.
I also blame them for not having additional redundancy. I blame both them for not having a fallback, and AWS for allowing such a major outage to happen. Shockingly, more than one party can be at fault.
It’s pretty funny to argue in favour of centralised services in a decentralised platform
I never argued that. I provided the reality of what they did. I’m sorry the reality doesn’t align with how you think things should be.
You think everyone trying to make money is just stupid and has ignored some super reliable and cheap hosting because they want to gobble bezos cock? No, they solved challenging problems and made it a lot easier to stand up a reliable app.
I feel that you’re are very jaded over this subject, I truly felt it was a funny situation. No judgement from me
Yes, AWS has a lot of advantages and I do believe they usually provide a reliable service, but as with all centralised services when they go down a bunch of other stuff go with them and that should be avoided. Doesn’t make all the incredible engineers currently working in AWS stupid
No shit. I was DevOps at my last company and they were all in on AWS. In those 5 years we had one major outage. There was one other case of a particular service going down, forgot which one, but it mainly screwed DevOps and the db guys.
You’re talking to a bunch of young people who hate Bezos and by extension AWS. They have no idea what the internet was like before.
Personally I think the cost is outrageous, rather have my own hardware mirrored in geographically distant colos, but that doesn’t mean AWS isn’t amazing.
Eeehh, you’re literally suggesting that AWS added to the general stability and dependability of the internet in general
You have NO idea what you’re talking about
The internet was designed to survive nuclear war, talking about being dependable) and the entire idea was (and should continue to be) that you don’t rely on a single point of failure. Traffic should automatically route around dead nodes so that everything continues to flow. Decentralisation is key.
But of course with companies being companies and corporate doing what corporate does best (enshittify everything so that we make more monies) everything got centralized.
The centralization is an issue, but AWS is stable as hell. When I was first in IT, tech support, I had to explain to customers daily that, “No, your internet is fine, it’s just that particular website that’s down.”
And the centralization wouldn’t be a thing if AWS didn’t route all IAM services through us-east-1. My Lightsail in us-west-1 was fine yesterday.