Comment on ‘There isn’t really another choice:’ Signal chief explains why the encrypted messenger relies on AWS
EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 4 days agoIt’s plenty reliable. AWS is just somebody else’s datacenter.
Colo is more feasible, but who is going to travel to the various parts of the world to swap drives or whatever?
Most Colo DCs offer ad hoc remote hands, but that’s beside the point. What do you mean here by “Various parts of the world”? In Signal’s case even Amazon didn’t need anyone in “various parts of the world” because the Signal infra was evidently in exactly one part of the world.
If there’s an outage, you’re talking hours to days to get another server up, vs minutes for rented hosting.
You mean like the hours it took for Signal to recover on AWS, meanwhile it would have been minutes if it was their own infrastructure?
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
We don’t necessarily know that. All I know is that AWS’s load balancers had issues in one region. It could be that they use that region for a critical load balancer, but they have local instances in other parts of the world to reduce latency.
No, I mean if they had a proper distributed network of servers across the globe and were able to reroute traffic to other regions when one has issues, there could be minimal disruption to the service overall, with mostly local latency spikes for the impacted region.
My company uses AWS, and we had a disaster recovery mechanism almost trigger that would move our workload to a different region. The only reason we didn’t trigger it is because we only need the app to be responsive during specific work hours, and AWS recovered by the time we needed our production services available. A normal disaster recovery takes well under an hour.
With a self-hosted datacenter/server room, if there’s a disruption, there is usually no backup, so you’re out until the outage is resolved. I don’t know if Signal has disaster recovery or if they used it, I didn’t follow their end of things very closely, but it’s not difficult to do when you’re using cloud services, whereas it is difficult to do when you’re self-hosting. Colo is a bit easier since you can have hot spares in different regions/overbuild your infra so any node can go down.
EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 4 days ago
It was a DNS issue with DynamoDB, the load balancer issue was a knock-on effect after the DNS issue was resolved. But the problem is it was a ~15 hour outage, and a big reason behind that was the fact that the load in that region is massive. Signal could very well have had their infrastructure in more than one availability zone but since the outage affected the entire region they are screwed.
You’re right that this can be mitigated by having infrastructure in multiple regions, but if they don’t, the reason is cost. You can accomplish that same redundancy via Colo DCs for a fraction of the cost.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
Yes, if you buy an off the shelf solution, it’ll be expensive.
I’m suggesting treating VPS instances like you would a colo setup. Let cloud providers manage the hardware, and keep the load balancing in house. For Signal, this can be as simple as client-side latency/load checks. You can still colo in locations with heavier load; that’s how some Linux distros handle repo mirrors, and it works well. Signal’s data needs should be so low that simple DB replicas should be sufficient.