Goddamn AWS seems to be down again 4th time this month alone(downdetector.in)
downdetector.in
Goddamn AWS seems to be down again 4th time this month alone
https://downdetector.in/status/aws-amazon-web-services/
169 comments
Complete speculation; but I wonder if how Amazon works their employee's so hard is the root cause of this. Layer on COVID as an additional stressor and give it a few years and this could be the result. Curious to hear from those at Amazon, what's it been like during COVID?
They're losing engineers left and right, especially in H2 2021. It's probably all related. Their recruiters' emails are increasingly desperate. If I was considering a job at Amazon now, I would be very interested in a good answer for how they plan to address their attrition problem (and paying new hires well isn't a viable answer alone).
They have been getting desperate, much more so than my quarterly Facebook/Google email. I've also had multiple Amazon recruiters reaching out, whereas I usually have a single Facebook/Google one. But apparently they aren't desperate enough to allow remote work after Covid, so I keep reminding them I'm not interested in non-remote work.
Seems like every company in tech is losing engineers left and right at this point
I keep getting AWS recruiters contacting me and I'm pretty sure I am nowhere near qualified
I know a few companies that treat their engineers very well (remote, good pay, equity, no overtime, ~6 weeks vacation) and they’ve barely lost anyone.
Companies like Amazon should learn from this, but they likely won’t unless their employees unionize.
Companies like Amazon should learn from this, but they likely won’t unless their employees unionize.
Can you share names? Asking for a friend ... Although if they are small companies, I would be wary of anecdata... The narrative sounds good but small companies are more likely than large companies to exhibit extreme behavior in any metric, and it's likely that there's some confirmation bias in reporting what works / doesn't work
that’s true, and unless you trust someone in the inside you can’t rely on a company reporting accurately about themselves… plus the tide at a small company can turn in an instant, just look at basecamp
I think it’s worse at Amazon, but I don’t have any hard data to support that belief.
All they need to do to hire me is lay off the draconian IP assignment clauses or give me an explicit exception for side projects. That's what I tell the desperate recruiters, and then they go away until the next one comes along.
I'm not familiar with their draconian IP assignment, do you have any references I can read on this? Genuinely curious.
There was an article on The Register[0] about something especially nutty Amazon Games Services required of employees, then later backed off on. (Cheers to them for caving to pressure.) Apart from that I've got no good references. I believe AWS typically put the "usual" overbearing clause in their contracts, where any IP you create before or during your employment becomes theirs. Sadly, so do many other employers. My previous employer did, and it was a sticking point for me and one reason for leaving.
[0] https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/13/amazon_game_contracts...
[0] https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/13/amazon_game_contracts...
Attrition has been super high during Covid and they raised the pay a lot for new offers to try and attract talent. (source: I got an offer for S3 mid-Nov. this is what the hiring manager told me).
The rule of thumb of efficiency is that it can make things worse when it breaks. How that applies to organizations is if you have an incredible org with a higher plates to plate spinner ratio than ever, then if you have a catastrophe, the org may not have enough people to actually get the plates spinning again as fast as a less efficient, larger crew with more reserve.
AWS was always stressful. Great people for the most part. Culture had strong pros and strong cons. Same for treatment of employees; mixed bag.
During COVID everyone who didn’t need to be in the office worked from home. That was sometimes more stressful as you had lots more time in video meetings and no hallway interactions to make quick decisions on easy stuff.
For the problem reports today I am in wait and see mode. It’s not clear to me yet that AWS is the problem; could be a six-pack-and-a-backhoe kind of problem with a network provider.
During COVID everyone who didn’t need to be in the office worked from home. That was sometimes more stressful as you had lots more time in video meetings and no hallway interactions to make quick decisions on easy stuff.
For the problem reports today I am in wait and see mode. It’s not clear to me yet that AWS is the problem; could be a six-pack-and-a-backhoe kind of problem with a network provider.
> Complete speculation; but I wonder if...
If we're going into pure speculation mode I think we might also want to include that maybe their outages are staged and have factored in that the temporary bad press and paying out SLA credits is more profitable because it guides existing customers to start scaling to multiple AWS regions to offset these infrequent downtime events in 1 specific region at a time.
For example if you have hosting on US West but now to help reduce time down you duplicate your infrastructure in the EU region then I'm pretty sure the outcome here is if you were paying $6,000 a month before now you would be paying $12,000 a month (+/- any regional cost differences).
Realistically I don't believe this is the case but it's not impossible.
If we're going into pure speculation mode I think we might also want to include that maybe their outages are staged and have factored in that the temporary bad press and paying out SLA credits is more profitable because it guides existing customers to start scaling to multiple AWS regions to offset these infrequent downtime events in 1 specific region at a time.
For example if you have hosting on US West but now to help reduce time down you duplicate your infrastructure in the EU region then I'm pretty sure the outcome here is if you were paying $6,000 a month before now you would be paying $12,000 a month (+/- any regional cost differences).
Realistically I don't believe this is the case but it's not impossible.
Likely more because of internet-region data transit costs.
[deleted]
It’s Christmas Eve, I aint answering any PagerDuty notification today or tomorrow.
voidfunc(5)
You could just borrow the AWS wording.
Say that you're answering the on-call pager, but with "elevated latency".
Say that you're answering the on-call pager, but with "elevated latency".
"My standard Service Level Agreement for on-call is an average incident response time of < 24 hours (including weekends). Leave requirements may see periods of elevated response times."
In other words, I'll start to work on your problem at 0800 local time the next work day.
In other words, I'll start to work on your problem at 0800 local time the next work day.
what the hell this is unacceptable. is this some sort of sabotage? AWS may have to live this down for years in RFPs
Wonder how much of this is caused by engineers rushing to fix log4j issues at AWS so they can enjoy the holidays? Their stack is heavily Java-based isnt it?
Unclear on this one, but wasn’t the last one caused by power failure in an AZ?
Log4j on the transfer switch, then!
Amazon’s SLAs are quickly becoming only useful for kindling.
At least your fireplace will give some warmth for your relatives. Merry Christmas!
At least your fireplace will give some warmth for your relatives. Merry Christmas!
looks like it's a connectivity outage across all services - https://www.thousandeyes.com/outages/
Nice link, didn't know it. Thanks!
Happens when you delegate, don't give them money.
I got worried when I saw this then checked https://status.aws.amazon.com/ and all seems good, I'm relieved ;)
I hope you are kidding because Amazon has been very late with updating that page in the past despite problems being obvious.
That's the joke.
no fun if you have to explain it haha
Some poor soul is in charge of updating that page manually.
For once the AWS status page is actually telling the truth, there is no outage.
I would be curious to hear what any current or former AWS employees think the internal consequences become for this.
From the outside, it feels like they are going to have to do something different to get some customer confidence back. Some sort of "mea culpa" with an explanation of what they are going to change.
From the outside, it feels like they are going to have to do something different to get some customer confidence back. Some sort of "mea culpa" with an explanation of what they are going to change.
It’ll be a lot of finger pointing and teams covering their own ass
That seems to be the status quo. I'm curious if the current trend is enough to break that tradition.
Or maybe breaking stuff is celebrated? For every type of downtime there will be lessons learned.
Every place I'v worked has celebrated fixing things that have broken, and forces engineers to fight for prevention. It's not exactly celebrating things breaking, but it sure looks a lot like it.
That's only true if lessons are learned. If an outage happens and you do nothing to fix it (or worse, do something entirely too specific without fixing the real problem and thinking you've done it) the exact same problem will happen again and you'll get another opportunity to not learn the lesson.
Jeff Bezos comes back /s
Can't speak for other teams, but the dynamics in mine are pretty great. We don't overwork and leadership puts explicit emphasis on work/life quality.
From what I've heard in other teams (including some that own the big services you're familiar with), it can be a shitshow. Oncalls get paged 10*N times a week (typically 24/7 2-week rotation with two active oncalls, but depends), teams are leaking talent, desperately trying to hire good engineers while keeping the lights on.
From what I've heard in other teams (including some that own the big services you're familiar with), it can be a shitshow. Oncalls get paged 10*N times a week (typically 24/7 2-week rotation with two active oncalls, but depends), teams are leaking talent, desperately trying to hire good engineers while keeping the lights on.
Apologies are not actionable. Service providers promise some number of 9s percent uptime, not zero problems. It should be obvious that perfection is not achievable, and that at scale small problems can get magnified.
Customer confidence is only an issue if there are alternative providers that don’t have problems. That isn’t the case with cloud hosting.
Customer confidence is only an issue if there are alternative providers that don’t have problems. That isn’t the case with cloud hosting.
I'm unclear on what you're responding to. I wasn't saying an apology was the right remedy, nor did I suggest they should have zero issues.
Customer confidence is an issue because they've had 4 notable issues in a very short timeframe.
Edit: I think you're reading something into my comments that's more than what I've said. I am curious what the AWS response to 4 major incidents in a month's time will be. That's it. At least in my circles, it is an issue for customers. I respect that it appears not to be in your circles.
Ahh. By "response", I did not mean the incident summary. I meant the overarching company response, if any. Like policies around change control, capacity additions, and so on.
Customer confidence is an issue because they've had 4 notable issues in a very short timeframe.
Edit: I think you're reading something into my comments that's more than what I've said. I am curious what the AWS response to 4 major incidents in a month's time will be. That's it. At least in my circles, it is an issue for customers. I respect that it appears not to be in your circles.
Ahh. By "response", I did not mean the incident summary. I meant the overarching company response, if any. Like policies around change control, capacity additions, and so on.
The issues affected only a fraction of customers. Long threads on HN speculating about the causes and armchair quarterbacking have little to do with customer confidence.
All of the big cloud providers have problems, so unless there's a service with similar offerings and reach with demonstrably better reliability customer confidence is not going to matter -- people will use the least bad of the available choices.
I have multiple customers hosting on AWS, and a couple on GCP, and one on Azure. Azure by far has the most problems in my limited experience. I have servers on AWS (US East Ohio and US West Oregon) with 600+ days of uptime. None of my customers except the one on Azure have ever contacted me about an outage, in two or three years. At the same time I can read long threads like this on HN full of doom and gloom and predictions about the decline of AWS. Which customers are we talking about? I know I'm not the customer for AWS -- I don't pay for hosting.
Having moved more than a dozen companies from self-hosting and co-located hosting to AWS (or GCP, Azure if that's what they want) I can say that they are 100% happier. Relatively infrequent outages that AWS has the resources and incentive to jump all over and fix are preferable to trying to get me or some other pissed off engineer to drive in and try to figure things out.
If quality, reliability, and frequent outages drove customers away then Tesla would have withered up years ago. There are more factors in play here than what a small number of committed tech geeks (like me) think about how AWS could be doing things better.
All of the big cloud providers have problems, so unless there's a service with similar offerings and reach with demonstrably better reliability customer confidence is not going to matter -- people will use the least bad of the available choices.
I have multiple customers hosting on AWS, and a couple on GCP, and one on Azure. Azure by far has the most problems in my limited experience. I have servers on AWS (US East Ohio and US West Oregon) with 600+ days of uptime. None of my customers except the one on Azure have ever contacted me about an outage, in two or three years. At the same time I can read long threads like this on HN full of doom and gloom and predictions about the decline of AWS. Which customers are we talking about? I know I'm not the customer for AWS -- I don't pay for hosting.
Having moved more than a dozen companies from self-hosting and co-located hosting to AWS (or GCP, Azure if that's what they want) I can say that they are 100% happier. Relatively infrequent outages that AWS has the resources and incentive to jump all over and fix are preferable to trying to get me or some other pissed off engineer to drive in and try to figure things out.
If quality, reliability, and frequent outages drove customers away then Tesla would have withered up years ago. There are more factors in play here than what a small number of committed tech geeks (like me) think about how AWS could be doing things better.
The responses are basically corporate form letters: We're sorry, here's the (undecipherable) root cause, here's what we (wish/hope/pray for) will happen going forward. Those usually include some unverifiable numbers that downplay the severity, duration, and number of affected sites.
HN has lots of these apologies that seem insincere: Here's what happened, here's how we fixed it, here's what we will do to prevent this happening again. It's a PR exercise, not something that necessarily improves my confidence.
Any complex technology at AWS scale is going to have outages and mysterious problems and glitches, all the time. That's inherent to both technology and human organizations, and the HN crowd should understand that better than lay people. These threads mainly serve as launch points for endless armchair diagnostics and proposed solutions from people who have no skin in the game.
HN has lots of these apologies that seem insincere: Here's what happened, here's how we fixed it, here's what we will do to prevent this happening again. It's a PR exercise, not something that necessarily improves my confidence.
Any complex technology at AWS scale is going to have outages and mysterious problems and glitches, all the time. That's inherent to both technology and human organizations, and the HN crowd should understand that better than lay people. These threads mainly serve as launch points for endless armchair diagnostics and proposed solutions from people who have no skin in the game.
It takes years to build trust with your customers, and very little to disrupt it. I think these recent events will have people rethink their cloud strategy. This could be a good opportunity for Google to take on Amazon.
I'm not usually the person to complain about UI performance but Google cloud admin is the slowest trash I had to use in a while, even Azure is better. So here's me hoping it doesn't pick up steam.
The GCP admin console is painfully slow and yet is still somehow faster than the new Google Ads UI.
The GCP admin console once created an impossible to delete cloud function and I spent 2 months convincing support that I knew how to click a button.
It has been awhile since I used the GCP admin, but I am intimately familiar with how awful the Azure UI is... is it really better than GCP? I have never liked how Azure seems to be designed as if you're in a virtual machine or something. The horizontal scrolling is a mess.
The company I work for switched from Azure to GCP at the start of the year and personally I don't agree with this statement. Azure was a royal pain in the ass compared to GCP, which I find to be rather smooth and responsive.
Maybe you're going off of past experiences and it's since gotten better?
Maybe you're going off of past experiences and it's since gotten better?
Or for offline-friendly webapps to flourish?
All you have to do is go back to the outage/event timeline for GCP to know exactly how ill-informed of a decision that would be. (Not to mention all the other product offering differences)
[deleted]
This is getting to be a massive joke. Any reputation AWS has for being robust has been wiped out over the past month or so. I feel bad for the various engineers at AWS and other companies who are having to work on their day off.
> Goddamn AWS seems to be down again 4th time this month alone
I feel obligated to point out that this is a very editorialized title, which is against site guidelines. Not... that I don't sympathize, just that it's perhaps a bit out of line even for providing context.
I feel obligated to point out that this is a very editorialized title, which is against site guidelines. Not... that I don't sympathize, just that it's perhaps a bit out of line even for providing context.
You felt obligated to the benefit of who, exactly?
The entire HN community, presumably.
AWS
True, but it's funny... perhaps next time a "Tell HN" with the link?
pictur(3)
I'm honestly sick of seeing these posts. Every single post I've seen on HN, I have had no down time in EC2, S3, Workspaces, FSx for Windows, Directory Service, Console, etc.
Over 200 services, 86 availability zones and 26 regions. We might as well post every 5 minutes if we post every time something on AWS goes down. And yes AWS is more dependent on us-east-1 but one of the outrages posts was for a minor outage in us-west-1.
Over 200 services, 86 availability zones and 26 regions. We might as well post every 5 minutes if we post every time something on AWS goes down. And yes AWS is more dependent on us-east-1 but one of the outrages posts was for a minor outage in us-west-1.
Well, there really shouldn't be be a service-- even across all regions and products-- going down every five minutes. Especially because it would mean service that needed to be in multiple regions around the world would almost always be having some type of issue.
Hmm, am I wrong in this? I admittedly don't work on things of worldwide or nationwide of that scale so if my statement isn't accurate I like to learn from it. Thanks for any additional insight & explanation.
You aren’t necessarily wrong, but there’s a difference between a service at AWS scale experiencing frequent problems (inevitable if you think about it) and what actual impact those problems have. Overall the vast majority of AWS users don’t experience frequent problems.
By analogy cars crash every few minutes in my city (Las Vegas), but I can’t conclude that indicates some inherent (or easily fixable) problem with the road infrastructure or the design of cars, or the skill of drivers. The frequent crashes rarely affect me.
By analogy cars crash every few minutes in my city (Las Vegas), but I can’t conclude that indicates some inherent (or easily fixable) problem with the road infrastructure or the design of cars, or the skill of drivers. The frequent crashes rarely affect me.
Thanks, that makes sense. I always like to know why I'm wrong, but getting that explanation can be a fine line to avoid looking like you're complaining about downvotes. I could care less about the votes, but I do want to learn. Much appreciated.
>one of the outrages posts was for a minor outage in us-west-1.
It was both us-west-1 and us-west-2, for 45 minutes or so. Was interesting for Auth0 customers, as they use us-west-2 as their primary, and us-west-1 is the failover location.
It was both us-west-1 and us-west-2, for 45 minutes or so. Was interesting for Auth0 customers, as they use us-west-2 as their primary, and us-west-1 is the failover location.
> Every single post I've seen on HN, I have had no down time
and I'm averaging six nines uptime over the past year on a $5 KVM virtual machine hosted at a sketchy hosting company, but that doesn't mean something catastrophic can't or won't happen unexpectedly
and I'm averaging six nines uptime over the past year on a $5 KVM virtual machine hosted at a sketchy hosting company, but that doesn't mean something catastrophic can't or won't happen unexpectedly
Measured by who?
my own external-to-the-vm monitoring tools that poll its availability for answering pings and ssh, and its own system uptime.
note that I count the six nines as unplanned downtime, it's had less availability than that because I reboot it for a newer kernel and debian-stable system updates maybe every 4-5 months.
note that I count the six nines as unplanned downtime, it's had less availability than that because I reboot it for a newer kernel and debian-stable system updates maybe every 4-5 months.
bool3max(2)
I think it would have been fine if it had Tell HN in front of it. Without it the title would be against the rules and guidelines. One could argue the word Goddamn seems to be provocative. Which could be appropriate if it was really down. But it is not. I think @dang need to edit the title.
It certainly could be editorialized. Alternatively, AWS may be in fact damned by god.
nice try, Jeff ...
AS6453 is having a mega outage according to https://www.thousandeyes.com/outages/. Lot of services for users in India were inaccessible for ~1h or so.
Some cloudfare seem to be down too?
So not AWS, but internet outage in general in India?
…or there are Internet issues that are causing issues for people. Do we actually know AWS is having issues or people are speculating?
Not seeing any issues here, but am seeing people reporting broader internet issues at the moment. Post title seems a bit quick on the trigger to point blame.
Not seeing any issues here, but am seeing people reporting broader internet issues at the moment. Post title seems a bit quick on the trigger to point blame.
I have been wondering if Charlie Bell leaving AWS has anything to do with these recent outages. His ops meetings were fucking brutal. I’m curious how they are since he left.
A lot of senior AWS employees have left. What the root causes of these outages are is a well guarded secret. I work at Amazon and no one I know knows anything in detail about what went down and why
Why isn't there any investigative journalism looking into wtf is happening at AWS? What the point of all these tech journalists writing all those puff pieces for access if they're not going to use it to pierce the NDA shield at times like this?
I wonder how many are hosted on AWS and if that has any influence on whether they'd be willing to investigate.
Being merely hosted on AWS should not be an influence at all.
I agree that it should not, but would you want to bite the hand that hosts you?
“Breaking: AWS censors website that criticized them”
As if they didn’t already get enough negative attention.
As if they didn’t already get enough negative attention.
If there is sufficiently competent investigative journalism going on, you wouldn't know it either way until a report was released.
You can't figure these kind of outages out from the outside, and Amazon aren't going to explain it you except for their official explanations. Plus - 'access' means doing what the subject tells you, certainly not doing anything investigative.
Amazon has been under the spotlight for labor practices, safety, wages. I’m sure the journalists can still order stuff from Amazon.
As a programmer I can probably guess how AWS experiences problems: programming and networking are hard problems, they get exponentially harder at scale, and there’s no known way to prevent every problem.
If AWS or some journalists gave us details we would just see 200 posts about how they could have done it better with Rust, nothing actually useful for anyone.
As a programmer I can probably guess how AWS experiences problems: programming and networking are hard problems, they get exponentially harder at scale, and there’s no known way to prevent every problem.
If AWS or some journalists gave us details we would just see 200 posts about how they could have done it better with Rust, nothing actually useful for anyone.
So this is the 4th time an uninteresting update like this has come to the front page... Why? What can be gathered from it? Get the AWS post-mortem on here, for that I'll be piqued. HN is not a status page. I don't instinctively check HN when my service is down because why would I?
As a counterpoint, HN is one of the first places I check if a big service seems to be down, because it usually shows up here before their status pages.
I've always heard about technical debt at AWS, with thousand line functions everyone is terrified to touch, demotivated employees doing whatever it takes to close tickets without dealing with the root causes, and so on.
I presume that this rash of downtime is just the rickety structure inevitably creaking and breaking. It's probably too late now to fix things — dealing with legacy code requires patience, discipline, and understanding which the management of Amazon doesn't have. They'll just yell at people louder, and hold people "accountable" by punishing anyone where anything breaks.
I presume that this rash of downtime is just the rickety structure inevitably creaking and breaking. It's probably too late now to fix things — dealing with legacy code requires patience, discipline, and understanding which the management of Amazon doesn't have. They'll just yell at people louder, and hold people "accountable" by punishing anyone where anything breaks.
[deleted]
I worked there and can vouch for what you said. AWS is built like a house of cards. They just painted it orange and white to make it look cohesive. What's funny though is that the CSS isn't even sourced from one place. They tell front-end engineers to use a dropper tool and to just copy and paste style from other places. DRY is not in Amazon's vocabulary.
Gotta love their leadership principles:
> Frugality (we'll give you a shitty laptop, shitty chair, and a shitty desk.)
> Be right a lot (are you too stupid to forecast the future?!)"
Gotta love their leadership principles:
> Frugality (we'll give you a shitty laptop, shitty chair, and a shitty desk.)
> Be right a lot (are you too stupid to forecast the future?!)"
Bryan Cantrill did an interesting deconstruction on Amazon leadership principles.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMGAtxUlAc&t=26m42s
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMGAtxUlAc&t=26m42s
That was amazingly on point and had me laughing hysterically. Thank you.
I never ever want to hear people disparage DigitalOcean or Linode ever again. The "cloud" has now been objectively proven to be just as flakey.
[deleted]
There is no AWS outage, just routing issues with shit asian ISPs affecting connectivity to many providers. Amazon has nothing whatsoever to do with this.
Imagine Comcast or Verizon fucking up their configs, you might not be able to access AWS stuff but that doesn’t mean that AWS is down.
But hey, the real story wouldn’t make the front page, so lets just stick to the fabricated narrative.
Imagine Comcast or Verizon fucking up their configs, you might not be able to access AWS stuff but that doesn’t mean that AWS is down.
But hey, the real story wouldn’t make the front page, so lets just stick to the fabricated narrative.
Anyone deploying to production Christmas eve, or even the week of Christmas, should have to get direct approval from the CTO of the company to do so. Just a terrible, terrible idea.
perfect idea if you're small b2b company b/c the trafic is super low
I don't know about "4th time this month alone" which seems a bit editorialised, but our company is off AWS for now, and most likely for good.
We're not in the cloud or tech business per se, and as such our customers are not really understanding of technical issues which unfortunately means they are blaming us, and our own reputation is on the line because of AWS' shortcomings.
We did consider Google but for now OVH is the only major provider which is both reliable and secure (w.r.t. court-and-gag letters from government and intelligence agencies) as far as we're concerned. We still use Hetzner and Scaleway for some older stuff and also because of Scaleway's low prices, but it's likely we're moving everything to OVH in the future.
We're not in the cloud or tech business per se, and as such our customers are not really understanding of technical issues which unfortunately means they are blaming us, and our own reputation is on the line because of AWS' shortcomings.
We did consider Google but for now OVH is the only major provider which is both reliable and secure (w.r.t. court-and-gag letters from government and intelligence agencies) as far as we're concerned. We still use Hetzner and Scaleway for some older stuff and also because of Scaleway's low prices, but it's likely we're moving everything to OVH in the future.
This looks to be an ISP issue and not AWS.
> 10:41 AM PST Between 8:59 AM and 9:32 AM PST and between 9:40 AM and 10:16 AM PST we observed Internet connectivity issues with a network provider outside of our network in the AP-SOUTH-1 Region. This impacted Internet connectivity from some customer networks to the AP-SOUTH-1 Region. Connectivity between EC2 instances and other AWS services within the Region was not impacted by this event. The issue has been resolved and we continue to work with the external provider to ensure it does not reoccur.
https://status.aws.amazon.com/#AP_block
https://status.aws.amazon.com/#AP_block
According to ThousandEyes, it looks like it was AS16509 that was affected. The outage lasted for 28 min; however, it didn't seem to affect many applications for too long.
I think it's because there was a backup server that kicked in for AS16509; however, it also went down but only for 8 min.
https://www.thousandeyes.com/outages/
I think it's because there was a backup server that kicked in for AS16509; however, it also went down but only for 8 min.
https://www.thousandeyes.com/outages/
According to ThousandEyes, the bigger outage though is TATA Communications server AS6453. That was down or at least having issues of some sort for 1 hr 11 min.
212 cases doesn't seem to be a lot. Does anyone know if it's legit? If they are burning left and right the 9s are going to leave soon.
These threads always remind me of Umberto Eco's essay Sports Chatter. He describes the degress of participation in sport:
1. Playing the game yourself.
2. Watching other people play.
3. Talking about people playing the game.
4. Listening to someone else talk about people playing the game (i.e. sports commentators).
5. Talking about what sports commentators have to say.
In sports and in threads like this we're mostly at 3, 4, or 5. Even people who work at AWS posting here may only be "watching," i.e. working with second-hand information. While it's entertaining to nerds to speculate about root causes and possible solutions, and the dire predicted fallout from problems (especially when they happen to companies they dislike), it's just chatter and doesn't actually address any real issue, or inform any decisions that mean anything.
1. Playing the game yourself.
2. Watching other people play.
3. Talking about people playing the game.
4. Listening to someone else talk about people playing the game (i.e. sports commentators).
5. Talking about what sports commentators have to say.
In sports and in threads like this we're mostly at 3, 4, or 5. Even people who work at AWS posting here may only be "watching," i.e. working with second-hand information. While it's entertaining to nerds to speculate about root causes and possible solutions, and the dire predicted fallout from problems (especially when they happen to companies they dislike), it's just chatter and doesn't actually address any real issue, or inform any decisions that mean anything.
It's almost as though it were a bad idea to put all the eggs in one basket
Pro-Tip: Get the hell out of US-East-1.