Comment on A single point of failure triggered the Amazon outage affecting millions
neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works 9 hours agoMonopolies exist exactly like this. With them not competing fairly and coordinating with one another so as to not encroach on theory territory.
Ever wonder why despite there being dozens of ISPs in the country, you’ve only ever got an option for like a main one, and an intentionally shitty one to make the main one look better?
It’s all a rigged game.
ramble81@lemmy.zip 9 hours ago
My main point, which may have been buried in my quickness to type things, is that it is on the individual companies to choose how they design and architect their systems. This was only a problem in us-east-1. They could have used other AWS regions, they could have used Azure or GCP. They could have used a multi-cloud or hybrid solution, and none of this would be an impact.
AWS is offering infrastructure, but it’s still on the companies to decide how they’ll use it. The ire should be placed on them, just as much, if not more, for taking the easy way out.
Even if you were to have a co-op owned style cloud solution (democratized as it were). If companies choose to only host in one Datacenter/region it’s squarely on them.
A lot of these big names that went down have very poor infrastructure practices if a single region of a single provider took them out. It’s definitely not for lack of money on their part.
DJKJuicy@sh.itjust.works 7 hours ago
You’re right, though. AWS has far more data centers/regions. Even if a company only uses AWS, they can set up High Availability/Disaster Recovery solutions that replicate across AWS regions.
But they won’t because:
ramble81@lemmy.zip 7 hours ago
Bingo. Which goes to my point the ire should be at the companies more than AWS. And a lot of the big companies have more than enough money to handle it, but they’re greedy. But instead everyone is focusing on AWS, saying it’s a “monopoly” and needs to be “democratized”. It’s completely misplaced outrage IMO.