• DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Can you name a more reliable alternative? With citations?

    Because every major cloud provider has outages. On prem clouds also have outages. Everyone does.

    • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Can you name a more reliable alternative?

      Stop using hyperscalers. Then when an outage does occur, it doesn’t take down half the internet, and instead only affects a much smaller subset of services.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        45 minutes ago

        Problem is that as a provider, if you are sure you are confident you’ll get hit by an outage at some point anyway, it’s actually better for you if a bunch of other big names are brought down at the same time.

        Instead of “that one service sucked”, the story is “aws sucked”. If it happens too much people will more widely say “ok they suck for using aws”, but for now the transparency gets them treated more like being affected by an unavoidable external condition.

        I’m grateful a lot of sites I like didn’t use aws, but I’m not exactly a common demographic and even I won’t know if she is the services even move or not until another such outage.

      • DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Okay, you know those have outages too right?

        Like sure, it wouldn’t be all together like this, but that’s also not a reasonable ask for a lot of big cloud customers without huge investments for not actually anything extra reliability.

        • MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          One potential advantage of being up while a whole lot of other companies are down is that some customers may end up switching to you during an outage involving the majority of your competitors.

          Yes, you’d experience outages on the new service, but where you potentially lose X% of your business (I have no idea what that kind of number looks like - 0.1%? Higher? Lower?), in the event of AWS outage hitting all your competitors, they each lose 0.1% (or whatever) who disproportionately go to you because you were up while they, and other alternatives, were all down.

          This potentially advantages the first companies to jump off AWS for a comparable alternative, which is fair sight better than if the advantages only showed up once some minimum of companies left AWS since no one would be incentived to be first.

          • 3abas@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            From a worker point of view, nothing better than to shrug and say “not my hardware” and blame Amazon when your shit is down for two days, and take the opportunity to do some changes you’ve been putting off because they required scheduled downtime.

            Nobody is switching businesses because the service they pay for it’s down for a day. If you run an individual service business (restaurant, florist) sure, but no one is seriously switching businesses over this. Reliable long term self hosting is expensive and your uptick of business for that one day won’t make up for it.