Just letting you know how this response looks to other people -- Anon1096 raises legitimate objections, and their post seems very measured in their concerns, not even directly criticizing you. But your response here is very defensive, and a bit snarky. Really I don't think you even respond directly to their concerns, they say they'd want to see scale equivalent to AWS because that's the best way to see the wide variety of failure modes, but you mostly emphasize the auditors, which is good but not a replacement for the massive real load and issues that come along with it. It feels miscalibrated to Anon's comment. As a result, I actually trust you less. If you can respond to Anon's comment without being quite as sassy, I think you'd convince more people.
I appreciate the feedback, truly. Defensive and snarky are both fair, though I'm not trying to convince. The business and practices exist, today.
At risk of more snark [well-intentioned]: Clouds aren't the Death Star, they don't have to have an exhaust port. It's fair the first one does... for a while.
Ya, I totally believe that cloud platforms don't need a single point of failure. In fact, seeing the vulnerability makes me excited, because I realize there is _still_ potential for innovation in this area! To be fair it's not my area of expertise, so I'm very unlikely to be involved, but it's still exciting to see more change on the horizon :)
What company did you do it with, can you say? Definitely, they may have been an early mover, but they can (and I'll say will!) still be displaced eventually, that's how business goes.
It's fine if someone guesses the well-known company, but I can't confirm/deny; like privacy a bit too much/post a bit too spicy. This wasn't a darling VC thing, to be fair. Overstated my involvement with 'made' for effect. A lot of us did the building and testing.
Definitely, that makes sense. Ya no worries at all, I think we all know these kinds of things involve 100+ human work-years, so at best we all just have some contribution to them.
> think we all know these kinds of things involve 100+ human work-years
No kidding! The customers differ, business/finance/governments, but the volume [systems/time/effort] was comparable to Amazon. The people involved in audits were consumed practically for a whole quarter, if memory serves. Not necessarily for testing itself: first, planning, sharing the plan, then dreading the plan.
Anyway, I don't miss doing this at all. Didn't mean to imply mitigation is trivial, just feasible :) 'AWS scale' is all the more reason to do business continuity/disaster recovery testing! I guess I find it being surprising, surprising.
Competitors have an easier time avoiding the creation of a Gordian Knot with their services... when they aren't making a new one every week. There are significant degrees to PaaS, a little focus [not bound to a promotion packet] goes a long way.
