×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Amazon.com Website Down For Over 1 Hour

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the there-goes-the-bottom-line dept.

228

CorporalKlinger writes "CNET News is reporting that Amazon's US website, Amazon.com, has been unreachable since 10:30 AM PDT today. As of posting, visiting www.amazon.com produces an 'Http/1.1 Service Unavailable' message. According to CNET, "Based on last quarter's revenue of $4.13 billion, a full-scale global outage would cost Amazon more than $31,000 per minute on average." Some of Amazon's international websites still appear to be working, and some pages on the US Amazon.com site load if accessed using HTTPS instead of HTTP."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

228 comments

holy shit (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23685857)

holy shit

Re:holy shit (-1, Offtopic)

Doddman (953998) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686083)

AAAAANNNDDD why is this ncsry cmt

wtf -- is boingboing moderating slashdot now too? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23686221)

AAAAANNNDDD why is this ncsry cmt

wht th fck?

This will surely help (5, Funny)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685881)

I'm sure the sysadmins appreciate Slashdot sending thousands of requests their way while they're site's already down. While we're at it, maybe we should find someone with a papercut and start squirting lemon juice all over them.

Re:This will surely help (4, Insightful)

sloth jr (88200) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686053)

It's really not all that difficult to survive a slashdot pounding for commercial web shops, even for dynamic content. Generally speaking, a popular link is going to generate perhaps 500k views a day for a day and some.

Only exceptions would be if there was a lot of heavy content being served on each page turn, saturation of one's uplink is a possibility - 10Gb links to the backbone aren't that common as yet, and CDNs like Akamai helps alleviate a good portion of that traffic.

My totally unsubstantiated guess is there was some DNS fooage that directed sites to a down cluster or possibly a screwed up CDN leg, but I'll be interested to see what's truly up.

sloth jr

Re:This will surely help (0, Offtopic)

general scruff (938598) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686747)

OffTopic Alert!!!

I honestly can't believe how many people have not see "Princess Bride". The world would be a better place if more had seen it... Or something...

Re:This will surely help (5, Interesting)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686903)

You think traffic from SlashDot would even be noticeable on Amazon's servers? You have some delusions of grandeur there.

Re:This will surely help (5, Insightful)

DrHanser (845654) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687361)

Digg sends far more traffic to a site than Slashdot does (obviously it wasn't always this way). And digg's traffic isn't particularly noteworthy to a site of any reasonable size. (Say, Ars Technica, nevermind amazon.)

Yahoo Buzz, on the other hand, sends *huge* amounts of traffic, noticeable to sites like, again, Ars but again no disruptions of service*. But I doubt that amazon would even hiccup. If you think slashdot would even be a blip on amazon's radar, you have some serious delusions about 1) slashdot's size 2) amazon's size or 3) both.

* According to one of the devs.

Great! (-1, Flamebait)

felipekk (1007591) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685887)

Slashdotting a webserver that is having technical difficulties surely sounds like a great idea!

Re:Great! (-1, Redundant)

pclminion (145572) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687199)

If you think the traffic Slashdot is capable of directing to a site is even within the same order of magnitude as what Amazon deals with every day (especially when they're down and people are compulsively reloading), you're insane.

Patents (5, Funny)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685891)

Wait until a patent comes out for: "Taking a web presense offline, to generate discussion about the web presense, thereby increasing awareness about the site." Also, sucks to be the guy that stepped on the surge protector laying on the floor....

Great move! (2, Funny)

PontifexPrimus (576159) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687507)

[...]thereby increasing awareness about the site."
Yeah, I never heard of those ah-mah-zon guys before... what do they sell, anyway? Warrior women?

So, it finally happened... (5, Interesting)

geekgirlandrea (1148779) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685897)

Believe me, if you've seen the code that runs that site, it's impressive it runs as well as it does. Try to imagine 900M static binaries that take almost an hour to link because of some tiny little code change, because they can't be fucked to make their deployment system deal with dynamic libraries reasonably.

Re:So, it finally happened... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23686599)

how would you know about?

Re:So, it finally happened... (5, Interesting)

geekgirlandrea (1148779) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686749)

Um, I used to work there. Believe it or not, there are some people here with real jobs and stuff.

Re:So, it finally happened... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23686997)

Okay mythical female Slashdot reader, with your unicorn and leprechauns friends chasing chupacabres out of the Amazon codebase. We believe you.

Re:So, it finally happened... (5, Funny)

geekgirlandrea (1148779) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687163)

Yeah, it wasn't like that at all. There used to be a few chupacabras, but I think the shoggoths ate them all, and those leprechauns never did any work. They'd just wander around all day, picking people's pockets and teleporting away.

Re:So, it finally happened... (5, Informative)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687207)

Well, if you worked there in the last 2 years you'd know that the giant monolithic app is dead and not mourned. I drew the short straw and had to sit in all day on the con call when they were taking it down area by area.

Re:So, it finally happened... (1, Insightful)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687253)

Good to know you *used to* work there, 'cos I'm pretty sure you just violated your NDA.

Re:So, it finally happened... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23686993)

Boooooooooommmmmmmmmm

Re:So, it finally happened... (4, Interesting)

pclminion (145572) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687229)

Believe me, if you've seen the code that runs that site, it's impressive it runs as well as it does. Try to imagine 900M static binaries that take almost an hour to link because of some tiny little code change, because they can't be fucked to make their deployment system deal with dynamic libraries reasonably.

Fuck up a dynamic library and you fuck everything. Fuck up one of those 900M programs and you've fucked 1/900M'th of everything.

What does Amazon's back end compile for? If it's Linux, that's an issue right there. The GNU linker has pathological behavior when linking large numbers of static libraries. I work on a relatively small (~1 million line) codebase and it takes about ten minutes to link. Link it on another platform (e.g. Solaris) and it links in about five seconds.

The problem isn't the huge number of libraries. The problem is that the linker blows.

How is this news? (-1, Troll)

McFly69 (603543) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685907)

How is this news? Websites go down, for various reasons, all the time. How is this story /. worthy?

Re:How is this news? (5, Insightful)

felipekk (1007591) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685913)

Because this represents 31k USD every minute.

Re:How is this news? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23686293)

Because this represents 31k USD every minute.
That assumes that everyone who would have bought something doesn't just try again when the site's back up. Nevermind that the number quoted is talking about a global outage -- this is just a partial outage.

Re:How is this news? (5, Insightful)

mixmatch (957776) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686335)

Exactly, except that not everyone that would have purchased their products in those 60 minutes will buy elsewhere. They hour they came back online they could make 1.9 x typical USD per minute. That and the fact that this is not really a holiday season of any sort, so sales are likely nowhere near the peak rates they reach around Christmas, New Years, etc...

Its less than 31k, but still not cheap (1)

Tmack (593755) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686977)

Per SEC filings, this qtr last year they did $2.8B in sales. Given that sales increased ~$800K first qtr this year over last, a similar increase for this qtr would put them at ~$3.4B, or ~$30K/min, or $483/sec. Going off the quarterly report instead of annual eliminates the obvious holiday season bias, which would inflate the numbers for this part of the year, but still doesnt take into account the daily/hourly distribution of sales. Since its happening in the morning hours of the US, their sales traffic around this time would probably be a little above average as people probably buy stuff before they head to work. The overnight hours are probably very slow sales wise which would pull the numbers down from the daytime hours. The morning is more than likely not peak, which I would think would be in the evening or maybe during the lunch hours, so using the daily avg should suffice for a rough estimate. Not knowing their sales distribution by weekday vs weekend or by hours makes any closer estimate nearly impossible. Also, as pointed out, some people will retry their purchases after the site is restored, though the sales from impulsive buyers are likely lost for good. So, the estimates are probably skewed a bit, but shouldnt be too far off the actual losses. Besides, as the GP stated, its not news that they are down, its news in how bad its bleeding them, and putting a number on it makes it even more interesting even if it is skewed a bit.

tm

Re:How is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23686051)

Slashvertizement at work.

pre slashdotting (1)

DoctorDeath (774634) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685909)

Now then when they do come back on line, thet will get slashdotted by everyone trying to see what's going on.

D&D did it. (5, Funny)

Silicon Jedi (878120) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685959)

One of the top sellers on Amazon is the D&D 4th Edition Core Rules giftset. It apparently is only shipping to some pre-orders. The geeks are freaking out and untintentionally DoS'ing Amazon.

Re:D&D did it. (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686259)

I find that highly unlikely. Less than 10% of the population is even interested in D&D. Factor in the usual resistance to new editions and the number of different places you can preorder the books, DnD taking down Amazon is like a wererat taking out a team of 9th level adventurers.

Re:D&D did it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23686369)

Joke

..whoosh...

You

Re:D&D did it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23687143)

Score: -1, Failure to see blatantly obvious sarcasm.

Re:D&D did it. (4, Funny)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687263)

I sure am glad you didn't take his statement seriously. Would have been pretty silly to argue a point against that.

Re:D&D did it. (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687397)

For Gygax's sake, I was promised it would ship today!!!

I want my D&D! ...and if you see the Amazon page for the core rulebook set, you'll see its sold out and backordered already!

Re:D&D did it. (1)

JustinKSU (517405) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687489)

I think it is more likely the fact that the (new 80GB Playstation 3 / Metal Gear Solid 4 bundle) went on pre-sale today. Unlike the 40GB variant, it is backwards compatible with Playstation 2 games. The Pre-ordering went live 30 minutes before the crash.

Analogy (1)

felipekk (1007591) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686005)

Posting on /. about a website with difficulties is like throwing a bucket of water on someone drowning. Actually, considering how big /. is, this is more like using a fire hose on someone drowning.

Re:Analogy (2, Funny)

rhombic (140326) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686111)

Considering how big Amazon is, it's more like using a fire hose on an aircraft carrier, I think.

Re:Analogy (1)

jonno317 (807642) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686211)

But a sinking aircraft carrier! ...or maybe one with a bit of water on the deck.

Hmm... (1)

Shinra (1057198) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686011)

I bet they briefly had Wiis in stock and the servers got overloaded with rapid-fire orders. Or perhaps a mouse ate through a wire in the server room. anything is possible.

We're sorry... (1)

Mi1ez (769713) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686021)

Looks like they JUST put up a 'We're sorry' page within the past few minutes. I had happened to be on Amazon AS it went down.. it was working one moment then suddenly died while I was browsing their MP3's for download.

OH NOES (-1, Troll)

snarfies (115214) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686061)

Wow, their website was down for one whole friggin' hour. They may (or may not) have lost $31,000/minute, IF the outage was global, not that it was - it was just the US site. Assuming it was global, and assuming they lost the max $31,000, that would be $31,000 out of $16,293,600,000.

In short, who give a crap. Post a story when they're down for at least 24 hours.

Re:OH NOES (2, Informative)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686205)

Not to nitpick or anything, but at $31,000 per minute, an hour outage would cost $1,860,000, not $31,000.

Re:OH NOES (3, Funny)

navygeek (1044768) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686615)

Hush, the troll ran out of fingers and toes.

There, there little troll. Please continue your nonsensical rant.

Re:OH NOES (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687325)

Assuming that every one of those purchased was lost either to another seller or to some sort of desire-destroying void. I very much doubt either was the case for the vast majority of the "lost" sales.

Re:OH NOES (4, Insightful)

VENONA (902751) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686901)

That reasoning doesn't really work for me.

You'd have to factor in the ratio of income from the
US site v others (UK, etc.). IMHO, the US site is likely to be more profitable than others. You'd have to plow through an annual report to really know, and factor that in.

The larger flaw, though, is that you're subtracting one minute, when the title states > 1 hour. That implies going on A couple of million US$ in losses, which is significant, as investors don't know the reason, and caution would indicate that it could be recurring, such as the problems SalesForce has had. That hit their stock prices, etc.

The Amazon outage is more complex--TFA indicates that some of their services were unavailable for different amounts of time, etc. What are those service worth? All anyone has is a number--from CNET. Did they do anything like a real analysis, reading quarterly reports, etc? No, by long odds. Amazon does application hosting. What customers were affected, what percentage of the business is involved, and what do CxOs of large clients think?

The odds are actually quite good that many people give a crap. Investors (and CxOs) don't like uncertainty. It wouldn't surprise me to find some Wall Street analyst(s) making calls. Maybe it was an outage on a critical replication server, problem identified, fixed, and will provably never happen again. But maybe not. We'll see.

(partially) works for me... (2, Informative)

nathana (2525) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686067)

I was just about to post saying that I had no problems getting to the site. I hit Amazon's home page, and it came up just fine for me...the first time. I was about to hit submit until I decided to also try navigating around the site a bit, log into my account, etc.; so I went back to try, and ran into the problem.

So, it seems to be working...at times.

D&D (2, Funny)

The Aethereal (1160051) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686165)

4th edition D&D books came out today. Coincidence?

Re:D&D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23687017)

Not just that, but the site came down moments after the MGS4 bundle sold out (sold out in seven minutes).

http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2008/06/06/metal-gear-bundle-kills-amazon-com/ [ps3fanboy.com]

Granted, with a name like PS3Fanboy you'll have to take this with a huge grain of salt, but the timing matches up nonetheless.

Re:D&D (1)

hchaudh1 (963268) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687113)

I don't think the name PS3Fanboy matters much. All these sites like WiiFanboy and XBox360Fanboy are run by the same parent group.

Re:D&D (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687279)

I didn't know servers would crash due to a lack of interest.

Seriously, look at the DnD 4.0 thread... I don't think I've seen something go over so lackluster since the Segway came out.

HTTPS works (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23686193)

just change the URL from HTTP to HTTPS and it works

so only port 80 servers are down

How much lost? (3, Insightful)

robo_mojo (997193) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686235)

"$31,000 per minute"

Even if accurate, that's assuming everyone who sees the error message will go somewhere else to buy their books.

I imagine some people would just wait to buy the book from amazon later when it is up again (probably very soon).

Re:How much lost? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687217)

True, but it's also hard to measure other intangibles such as tarnished image.

And Amazon, in my mind, doesn't quite have the nice comfy natural monopoly of network effects (think ebay, youtube or even slashdot). Nothing amazon sells cannot be bought elsewhere at about the same price. (That said, I'm a long-term and satisfied Amazon customer who tends to buy there unless I can save several bucks buying elsewhere).

Somebody write a book about this please (2, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686253)

I hope it's better than The Cuckoos Egg but I wouldn't know, I couldn't place my order for Stoll's book.

do a whois. Looks like DNS got pwn3d. (-1, Troll)

AragornSonOfArathorn (454526) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686281)

Microsoft and Apple got it too.  Probably many others.

$ whois amazon.com

Whois Server Version 2.0

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

AMAZON.COM.ZZZZZ.GET.LAID.AT.WWW.SWINGINGCOMMUNITY.COM
AMAZON.COM.MORE.INFO.AT.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM
AMAZON.COM.IS.N0T.AS.1337.AS.WWW.GULLI.COM
AMAZON.COM

$ whois microsoft.com

Whois Server Version 2.0

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZZZZ.MORE.DETAILS.AT.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZZZ.GET.LAID.AT.WWW.SWINGINGCOMMUNITY.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZOMBIED.AND.HACKED.BY.WWW.WEB-HACK.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZ.IS.0WNED.AND.HAX0RED.BY.SUB7.NET
MICROSOFT.COM.WILL.LIVE.FOREVER.BECOUSE.UNIXSUCKS.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.WILL.BE.SLAPPED.IN.THE.FACE.BY.MY.BLUE.VEINED.SPANNER.NET
MICROSOFT.COM.WILL.BE.BEATEN.WITH.MY.SPANNER.NET
MICROSOFT.COM.WAREZ.AT.TOPLIST.GULLI.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.USERS.SHOULD.HOST.WITH.UNIX.AT.ITSHOSTED.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.TOTALLY.SUCKS.S3U.NET
MICROSOFT.COM.SOFTWARE.IS.NOT.USED.AT.REG.RU
MICROSOFT.COM.SHOULD.GIVE.UP.BECAUSE.LINUXISGOD.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.RAWKZ.MUH.WERLD.MENTALFLOSS.CA
MICROSOFT.COM.OHMYGODITBURNS.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.MORE.INFO.AT.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.LOVES.ME.KOSMAL.NET
MICROSOFT.COM.LIVES.AT.SHAUNEWING.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.NOT.YEPPA.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.NOT.HOSTED.BY.ACTIVEDOMAINDNS.NET
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.IN.BED.WITH.CURTYV.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.HOSTED.ON.PROFITHOSTING.NET
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.GOD.BECOUSE.UNIXSUCKS.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.A.STEAMING.HEAP.OF.FUCKING-BULLSHIT.NET
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.A.MESS.TIMPORTER.CO.UK
MICROSOFT.COM.HAS.ITS.OWN.CRACKLAB.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.HAS.A.PRESENT.COMING.FROM.HUGHESMISSILES.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.FILLS.ME.WITH.BELLIGERENCE.NET
MICROSOFT.COM.CAN.GO.FUCK.ITSELF.AT.SECZY.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.ARE.GODDAMN.PIGFUCKERS.NET.NS-NOT-IN-SERVICE.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.AND.MINDSUCK.BOTH.SUCK.HUGE.ONES.AT.EXEGETE.NET
MICROSOFT.COM

$ whois apple.com

Whois Server Version 2.0

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

APPLE.COM.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM
APPLE.COM.MORE.INFO.AT.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM
APPLE.COM.IS.OWN3D.BY.NAKEDJER.COM
APPLE.COM.IS.0WN3D.BY.GULLI.COM
APPLE.COM.BEYONDWHOIS.COM
APPLE.COM.AT.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM
APPLE.COM

Re:do a whois. Looks like DNS got pwn3d. (4, Informative)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686505)

That whois lookup says absolutely nothing... I could add amazon.com.myserver.net as a dns record too, and it would have nothing to do with the lookups for amazon.com. The trick is to use whois to see what IP address www.amazon.com currently points at.

However, as has been pointed out, HTTPS works, so it's defininitely not a DNS issue. More likely someone along the chain corrupted a pooling link to the main http server and it propogated. I've done the same thing on apache2 servers in the past and had the same result; https still works fine, but http returns an error on key pages.

Re:do a whois. Looks like DNS got pwn3d. (1)

juuri (7678) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687413)

amazon.com.myserver.net as a dns record too

OLD CROTCHETY MAN MODE:

HOST RECORD

Re:do a whois. Looks like DNS got pwn3d. (5, Informative)

quazee (816569) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686537)

Of course, it's not a hack.

A fully-qualified DNS domain name ends with a dot, so you should type 'whois amazon.com.' instead.
Those "hacked" results you are getting are just bogus amazon.com.foo.bar. subdomains.

Re:do a whois. Looks like DNS got pwn3d. (1)

Mage Powers (607708) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686547)

Oddly enough this came up the last time something amazon went down.

if I specify microsoft.com.looksatporn.com as a nameserver for a domain I have, it doesn't mean I'm hacking microsoft.com ;)

DNS Issue (-1, Redundant)

prestonmichaelh (773400) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686301)

I had noticed the outage and think it may be a DNS issue. I guess I won't be buying anything today. Take a look at the whois output for amazon.com:

# whois amazon.com

Whois Server Version 2.0

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net/ [internic.net]
for detailed information.

Server Name: AMAZON.COM.ZZZZZ.GET.LAID.AT.WWW.SWINGINGCOMMUNITY.COM
IP Address: 69.41.185.219
Registrar: INNERWISE, INC. D/B/A ITSYOURDOMAIN.COM
Whois Server: whois.itsyourdomain.com
Referral URL: http://www.itsyourdomain.com/ [itsyourdomain.com]

Server Name: AMAZON.COM.MORE.INFO.AT.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM
IP Address: 203.36.226.2
Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net/ [opensrs.net]

Server Name: AMAZON.COM.IS.N0T.AS.1337.AS.WWW.GULLI.COM
IP Address: 80.190.192.24
Registrar: EPAG DOMAINSERVICES GMBH
Whois Server: whois.enterprice.net
Referral URL: http://www.enterprice.net/ [enterprice.net]

Domain Name: AMAZON.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/ [networksolutions.com]
Name Server: UDNS1.ULTRADNS.NET
Name Server: UDNS2.ULTRADNS.NET
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 28-mar-2008
Creation Date: 01-nov-1994
Expiration Date: 31-oct-2017

>>> Last update of whois database: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:26:07 EDT

Re:DNS Issue (1, Informative)

geekgirlandrea (1148779) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686357)

So, because some loser can set up a few records in a completely different domain, this is supposed to somehow have some effect on Amazon's DNS?

Re:DNS Issue (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686475)

No, the real shocker is that they use Network Solutions which is a company that perpetually has it's thumbs stuck up their asses.

Re:DNS Issue (1)

geekgirlandrea (1148779) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686531)

With Amazon, this isn't really shocking at all. I'm soooo glad I don't work there any more.

Re:DNS Issue (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686725)

Any reason why? I had an interview with them so I'm curious.

Re:DNS Issue (2, Informative)

geekgirlandrea (1148779) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686859)

It's a giant cube farm, and their code is like some sort of crawling horror of reanimated spaghetti which long ago swallowed up and devoured all documentation. And then there's the deployment system. As I mentioned in another comment on this article, it can't deal with dynamic libraries. When I left, it was a real and immediate issue how we were going to keep a certain product's dependencies small enough that it would be able to *link* in a 32-bit virtual address space. The linker was up to something like 2.8 GB of working set.

Re:DNS Issue (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686983)

Sounds kinda like my current job. Maybe I'll just pass if they decide to give me a second interview... Thanks for the info.

They Think I'm a Robot (4, Funny)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686517)

When I try I get to a page that says they think I'm a robot and I don't have access to see their website.

Well I think THEY are the robot. I don't know if I can win this argument...

Re:They Think I'm a Robot (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686715)

You: Well I think THEY are the robot. I don't know if I can win this argument...
Elizamazon: Do you wish that you can win this argument?

Re:They Think I'm a Robot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23686837)

Getting a "We're Sorry" page too. Was really worried that it was something on my end till I saw this. Wonder if I should email them or just wait it out.

Re:They Think I'm a Robot (1)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687203)

We're sorry!

You have been denied access to this feature because we believe you violated the terms, conditions, rules, guidelines or policies of our site in the past. If you believe we have taken this action in error, you may contact us at ad-help-us@amazon.com.

We apologize for the inconvenience.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why am I seeing this page?
A: This page is usually shown when we believe that the request is coming from a robot or other automated source of requests. If you are not a robot please contact us immediately by emailing ad-help-us@amazon.com and we will reinstate your access to our website.

Q: How can I operate a robot and not get this page?
A: We understand that there are many legitimate reasons for robots to access our website. We are happy to work with people trying to create robots so that they may do so safely and efficiently. If you are operating a robot and you are seeing this page we'd love to hear from you so that we may better understand your use case and help you to achieve your goals. Please email ad-help-us@amazon.com and we'll help you out - seriously, we aren't mad at you.

Q: What are some general tips for people writing robots?
A: First, you should see if there is a better method to get the information you need. For example, Amazon Web Services provides a rich set of APIs to retrieve the information displayed on many of Amazon's web pages (prices, reviews, sales rank, etc). Because Amazon Web Services exposes a stable set of APIs that provide structured data it is often much easier to retrieve information via this method. You'll be able to find out more about Amazon Web Services at http://aws.amazon.com./ [aws.amazon.com] Second, you should identify your robot using a unique user agent string that provdes a way we can get in touch with you if necessary. For example, here is Google's user agent string Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html).
Using Safari (not logged into an Amazon acct), I get that message. Using Opera (logged in with an acct that has been used for years), I get:

We're sorry!
An error occurred when we tried to process your request. Rest assured, we're already working on the problem and expect to resolve it shortly.

If you were trying to make a purchase, please check Your Account to confirm that the order was placed.

We apologize for the inconvenience.
They havin' problems. ;)

The problem isn't Amazon . . . (4, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686847)

It's all you people not typing in the write web address. Try it again. Make sure you put in the umlaut correctly. What do you mean there's no umlaut in Amazon.com? *Unplugs toaster and plugs back in Amazon's server* Wait 5 minutes and try again. --BOFH

$31,000 per minute! (5, Insightful)

DirePickle (796986) | more than 5 years ago | (#23686927)

would cost Amazon more than $31,000 per minute on average.
Because obviously if someone tries to buy something and Amazon is broken for an hour, they're just going to not-buy it or buy it from a competitor. Because you definitely can't wait an extra hour to place an order when it'll take 2-10 days for the product to get shipped to you anyway.

Re:$31,000 per minute! (1)

screamphilling (1173499) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687289)

actually I was about to spend $40 on a hiking tent when I discovered the site down. I hadn't seen the Slashdot story about this. Being the impatient person that I am, I went over to Google products and found a dealer with good ratings to purchase from... I'm not a frequent Amazon shopper or anything.. maybe once a month or two

Re:$31,000 per minute! (3, Insightful)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687343)

Because obviously if someone tries to buy something and Amazon is broken for an hour, they're just going to not-buy it or buy it from a competitor. Because you definitely can't wait an extra hour to place an order when it'll take 2-10 days for the product to get shipped to you anyway.

Well, they will frequently come back, yes. But the site being down also affects consumer confidence in a big way and that will make fewer people likely to go to the site.

So, using the metric of exactly how much you sell in a given time period is likely inaccurate, but I suspect the actual impact is higher, not lower.

Re:$31,000 per minute! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23687531)

Funny I thought the same thing.... But I hit the site during an outage to buy a new mouse... When I saw it was down, I thought I would try again later, but eventually I just got up from my desk and walked over to target and bought one there. So yes, I did buy from a competitor because the site was down.

Turns out I wanted the mouse now anyways, instead of waiting for it to ship, but I was initially too lazy to walk the 2 blocks to the store. Amazon being down was the little push of motivation I needed to get off my butt and buy it.

still not working AFAICT (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687147)

I tried to click on a link for a DIY Home Chemistry Experiment Book and got:

We're sorry!

An error occurred when we tried to process your request. Rest assured, we're already working on the problem and expect to resolve it shortly.

If you were trying to make a purchase, please check Your Account to confirm that the order was placed.

We apologize for the inconvenience.

  on the Amazon.com home page

thinks I am a robot (3, Interesting)

hloo (758762) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687215)

tried to access it from holland just now, got this message: We're sorry! You have been denied access to this feature because we believe you violated the terms, conditions, rules, guidelines or policies of our site in the past. If you believe we have taken this action in error, you may contact us at ad-help-us@amazon.com. We apologize for the inconvenience. Frequently Asked Questions Q: Why am I seeing this page? A: This page is usually shown when we believe that the request is coming from a robot or other automated source of requests. If you are not a robot please contact us immediately by emailing ad-help-us@amazon.com and we will reinstate your access to our website.

Anonymous Coward (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23687319)

I would login to post this but I'm afraid of losing my "mole".

I received word about 30 minutes ago that Amazon has been the victim of a DDoS attack this morning. At first, their Ops team didn't realize they were under attack and thought it was a traffic spike related to a promotion, but after about an hour of throwing hardware at the surge they realized what it was. And once they tubed the source IPs in the botnet another crop of zombies showed up.

It looks like they are getting a handle on it now as things are better. Bad day to work in Ops at Amazon I guess. I'm cracking a beer in your honor now, fellas. Good luck.

I find the worst part about this statistic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23687329)

is that it assumes that they are loosing 31k a minute.. because people won't try back and buy the product. This is on par with the "a billion people DL'd my song from Napster, I lost all that money" when in reality, it sucks, was deleted 1/2 way thru the first listen.

AWS and EC2 (2, Interesting)

DrHanser (845654) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687461)

A bit strange, the people wondering why this is news. Amazon provides the backend for a number of web services with their EC2 and AWS platforms. This is going to make third parties seriously consider whether or not they want to trust Amazon with their business.

That is yet another reason why this is Real News(tm).

Get better Amazon, we love you! (T_T) (2, Interesting)

gozu (541069) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687463)

Amazon: A credit to Jeff Bezos. I love Amazon prime, I enjoy my Kindle, I like the prices and the one click purchases and the mp3 previews and the look inside the book and the no-bullshit mp3 store (which I don't use) and the useful reviews and the decent recommendations, etc ! Amazon almost never leaves a bad taste in my mouth and keeps innovating with features that are actually not RETARDED or HOSTILE to me! ZOMG!

Amazon is as good as eBay-Paypal is evil. Both are outstanding products but one is loved and one is hated.

Sooo...in the time that I wrote this post, Amazon lost enough money to sustain me my entire life. That's sad.

Cost of outage (3, Interesting)

sugarmotor (621907) | more than 5 years ago | (#23687469)

a full-scale global outage would cost Amazon more than $31,000 per minute on average.
I don't trust this; some people may buy later if there is an outage, no?

Stephan

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...