Hacker News Reader

Comment by dijit | Hacker News Reader

I know it can happen to anyone and that every system will eventually go down no matter how many resources are spent or how smart you are. Heck, it might even be financially prudent to not chase those last 9s of uptime.

But r̶e̶l̶e̶a̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ posting this hours after a huge outage that affected most services for over an hour and also less than 12 days after a similar multi-hour outage seems somewhat ironic.

EDIT: guess I hurt someone’s feelings.

View on HN

> it might even be financially prudent to not chase those last 9s of uptime

That's the basic premise of an "error budget".

Upvoted since I was going to make the same comment. I have been dealing with some downfall from that issue today.

As a user of their cloud services, my perception of their reliability is pretty low compared to competitors. I still like GCP the best though.

> As a user of their cloud services, my perception of their reliability is pretty low compared to competitors. I still like GCP the best though.

I guess we tend to notice more the flaws of the services we use the most

Not in this case. At work, we use AWS and GCP, everything that runs on top of Kubernetes is deployed on both clouds. If I isolate the number of service stopping incidents this year for that vertical, I can find 3 on GCP's side, and zero on AWS.

As a user of GCP I agree. And anyway, bad things happen, a few bad things if handled honestly and transparently do not affect my trust.

I guess people didn't like that - "it might even be financially prudent to not chase those last 9s of uptime."

It just promotes bad mindset

But. That’s what they say in the book.

Ok, how many 9s does your SLA ensure? Why not one more?

Maybe they were too busy writing the book :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com