• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The cloud is just someone else’s computer. And that computer is busy printing AI videos of the President pooping out of a fighter jet, so now your files are inaccessible

  • rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    If you properly divide your instances between providers and regions and use load balancing which uses a corum of 3 availability model then it can be zero downtime pretty fairly guaranteed.

    People be cheap and easy tho, so 🤷‍♂️

      • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Screw the compute budget, the tripled team size without shipping any more features is a bigger problem here.

        • figjam@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I’ve seen the opposite. “Oh, you moved your app to the cloud and rebuilt it to be full cicd and self healing? Cool. Your team of 15 is now 3.”

          • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            I’m not sure if you are referring to the same thread.

            I’m talking about the effort to build multi region and multi cloud applications, which is incredibly difficult to pull off well. And presents seemingly endless challenges.

            Not the effort to move to the cloud.

    • FishFace@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      Dividing between providers is not what people would be doing if the resilience of cloud services were as is being memed about.

      Doing so is phenomenally expensive.

      • rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Doing so is phenomenally expensive.

        It’s demonstrably little more expensive than running more instances on the same provider. I only say -little- because there is a marginal administrative overhead.

        • rainwall@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Only if you engineered your stack using vendor neutral tools, which is not what each cloud provider encourages you to do.

          Then the adminstrative overhead of multi-cloud gets phenomenally painful.

            • rainwall@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Yeah, Terraform or it’s FOSS fork would be ideal, but many of these infrastructures are setup by devs, using the “immediately in front of them” tools that each cloud presents. Decoupling everything back to neutral is the same nightmare as migrating any stack to any other stack.

            • Lysergid@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Infrastructure is there to be used by apps/services. It doesn’t matter how it’s created if infrastructure across providers does not provide same API. You can’t use GCP storage SDK to call AWS s3. Even if API would be same, nothing guarantees consistent behavior. Just like JPA provides API but implementations and DBs behavior are inconsistent

  • 2deck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 month ago

    I remember SLAs including ‘five nines’ ensurances. That meant 99.999% uptime or an allowance of 26 seconds of downtime a month. That would be unheard of nowadays because no cloud provider can ensure that they will have that uptime.

    • buttnugget@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Amazon has so much redundancy built into EC2 that I genuinely thought they’d be able to avoid this.

          • figjam@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            I blame the customers being cheap or app teams being dumb not Amazon if apps are still down after a few hours of regional downtime.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I may be mistaken, but I really could’ve sworn that a lot of the really strict SLA guarantees Amazon gives assume you are doing things across availability zones and/or regions. Like they’re saying “we guarantee 99.999% of uptime across regions” sort of thing. Take this with a grain of salt, it’s something I only half remember from a long time ago.