“Microsoft is too big to go down, why do we need a redundancy?” Another round, barkeep.
“Amazon won’t ever have downtime, they’re huge! Our workloads are much safer there.” Make that two, what with MEC1-AZ2 being a smoking hole.
“Why would we need backups when these providers offer us a five-nines SLA?” Sorry, make that three, since Google’s EU-WEST-2-B AZ lost power and its redundancies failed to start.
Now don’t get me wrong, nothing is perfect or bulletproof. That being said, the more eggs you put into a single basket, the more of them get damaged if something happens to said basket.
Everyone lost the plot on backups, redundancy, and diversification in favor of single, “do it all” providers and hyperscalers.
What could possibly go wrong?
It's clear from the wording of the updates that Microsoft took the better part of a day to even figure out what was happening, and that they're throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, instead of following the kind of precise recovery plan that they would have had, had they understood their own systems.
What do you expect amz to do about the drone strikes haha.
if you absolutely needed your servers in an active war zone for some reason cant imagine you'd have five 9s either
That being said, I do distinctly remember being called an alarmist for warning that if a plurality of compute is in one physical area, and said compute serves a large amount of customers, then that space is a gigantic soft target.
“Nobody is going to attack a datacenter, stego-tech, you’re being completely unreasonable.”
Mmm, delicious schadenfreude.