This is why any criticism of AWS reliability is meaningless to me. All the cloud providers go down - all of them. Either you are multi-cloud, or you run your own hardware, but these events are inevitable.
If one provider is down more than the others, the criticism is not only valid, it results in real business loss for the provider and its customers.
On multi-cloud: it's one way to reduce the amount of downtime you have, but it comes with a significant operational cost depending on how your application is architected and how your teams internal to your company are formed. It is totally practical for someone to bank on AWS' reliability until they're at a significant amount of traction or revenue where the added uptime of going multicloud is worth the investment. I know you're not saying this isn't the case (I think you're saying "do that if you're going to complain about 1 providers' uptime"), but thought it was worth putting the context into the HN ether.
Multi-cloud is saying you think you can manage Kafka across two or three clouds better than GCP can manage Pub/Sub.
Er, we absolutely can and should compare rates of problems and overall reliability.
If you run your own hardware these events are inevitable too.
I know it's just a psychological thing about giving up "control", but I have to stifle a chuckle every time.
In the cloud, even very small scale apps can run into weird situations like the app server is up, the database is down, and the cache is responding about 50% of the time.
If you don't account for that from the beginning, it can lead to your app displaying some bizarre stuff to users.
I haven't run a server locally in 13 years but I can see why some people would miss it.
Is anyone tracking reliability for these public providers? Would be curious how AWS compares to Azure and GCP. My experience is it's better, but we may have avoided Kinesis or whatever that keeps going down.
in multiple datacenters?