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.
I read your comment. You basically repeated back what I said.
As for “not actually anything extra reliability”, that’s not true. This is literally the definition of all your eggs in one basket. If all these services were instead spread out amongst smaller providers, there wouldn’t have even been any news about it because it would have affected just a few services. But instead half the internet went down.
Even one of the applications I manage was down because of a single RTE npm dependency used on the forms. This is when we discovered that the npm module wasn’t bundling the whole thing but in fact dynamically pulling the js from a CDN hosted on AWS, because our prod instances kept erroring out for everyone (No, I did not write this application and I’m already replacing the dependency).
The argument isn’t about spending thousands for a lateral shift in reliability, the argument is to decouple everything from a single failure point.
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.
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.
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.
Did you read my entire comment? I know it’s more than one sentence, but your entire comment would be irrelevant if you read the whole thing.
Did you miss my point?
Why would a company move away from AWS?
Because everyone has outages…
Why should companies invest tens of thousands of dollars to move?
I read your comment. You basically repeated back what I said.
As for “not actually anything extra reliability”, that’s not true. This is literally the definition of all your eggs in one basket. If all these services were instead spread out amongst smaller providers, there wouldn’t have even been any news about it because it would have affected just a few services. But instead half the internet went down.
Even one of the applications I manage was down because of a single RTE npm dependency used on the forms. This is when we discovered that the npm module wasn’t bundling the whole thing but in fact dynamically pulling the js from a CDN hosted on AWS, because our prod instances kept erroring out for everyone (No, I did not write this application and I’m already replacing the dependency).
The argument isn’t about spending thousands for a lateral shift in reliability, the argument is to decouple everything from a single failure point.
Yes, the argument is about spending money to migrate, because how else do we decouple the single points of failure, if not to migrate away?
Remember, this is a capatistic hellscape. Everything is about money.
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.
Sure, but how much money is that worth to an individual company? Because migration is not easy or cheap. And your not getting more reliability…
It’s not that hard to be more reliable. It just costs slightly more than renting from Amazon.
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.