Hacker News Reader

Maybe this incident will make people rethink putting Cloudflare blindly in front of every website.

In theory even a single company service could be distributed, so only a fraction of websites would be affected, thus it's not a necessity to be a single point of failure. So I still don't like this argument "you see what happens when over half of the internet relies on Cloudflare". And yes, I'm writing this as a Cloudflare user whose blog is now down because of this. Cloudflare is still convenient and accessible for many people, no wonder why it's so popular.

But, yeah, it's still a horrible outage, much worse than the Amazon one.

The "omg centralized infra" cries after every such event kind of misses the point. Hosting with smaller companies (shared, vps, dedi, colo whatever) will likely result in far worse downtimes, individually.

Ofc the bigger perception issue here is many services going out at the same time, but why would (most) providers care if their annual downtime does or doesn't coincide with others? Their overall reliability is no better or worse had only their service gone down.

All of this can change ofc if this becomes a regular thing, the absolute hours of downtime does matter.

Exactly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com