Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yeah, exactly this. I don’t know why the person who responded to me is talking about survivorship bias… and I suppose I don’t really care because there’s a bigger point.

The internet was originally intended to be decentralised. That decentralisation begets resilience.

That’s exactly the opposite of what we saw with this outage. AWS has give or take 30% of the infra market, including many nationally or globally well known companies… which meant the outage caused huge global disruption of services that many, many people and organisations use on a day to day basis.

Choosing AWS, squinted at through a somewhat particular pair of operational and financial spectacles, can often make sense. Certainly it’s a default cloud option in many orgs, and always in contention to be considered by everyone else.

But my contention is that at a higher level than individual orgs - at a societal level - that does not make sense. And it’s just not OK for government and business to be disrupted on a global scale because one provider had a problem. Hence my comment on legislators.

It is super weird to me that, apparently, that’s an unorthodox and unreasonable viewpoint.

But you’ve described it very elegantly: 99.99% (or pick the number of 9s you want) uptime with uncorrelated outages is way better than that same uptime with correlated, and particularly heavily correlated, outages.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: