Beta
×

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!

Amazon EBS Failure Brings Down Reddit, Imgur, Others

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the karma-for-the-kindle-wiping dept.

Cloud 176

Several readers have sent word of a significant Amazon EBS outage. Quoting: "Amazon Web Services has confirmed that its Elastic Block Storage (EBS) service is experiencing degraded service, leading sites across the Internet to experience downtime, including Reddit, Imgur and many others. AWS confirmed on its status page at 2:11 p.m. ET that it is experiencing 'degraded performance for a small number of EBS volumes.' It says the issue is restricted to a single Availability Zone within the US-East-1 Region, which is in Northern Virginia. AWS later reported that its Relational Database Service (Amazon RDS) and its Elastic Beanstalk application plaform also experienced failures on Monday afternoon."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732685)

FP!

I hope this doesn't affect Facebook. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732703)

Or else my afternoon is going to totally suck.

Re:I hope this doesn't affect Facebook. (1)

IonOtter (629215) | about 2 years ago | (#41732729)

Nope, FB is alive and well.

To be fair, I find a lot more entertainment in Reddit and Imgur than FB...

Re:I hope this doesn't affect Facebook. (4, Interesting)

sortius_nod (1080919) | about 2 years ago | (#41733033)

I'm just glad I moved my hosting away from AWS. It seems they've had a few problems lately in their datacentres. Local Aussie hosting seems to have better bandwidth anyway.

Productivity up (5, Funny)

Phisbut (761268) | about 2 years ago | (#41732707)

Productivity reached a record high this afternoon.

Re:Productivity up (5, Funny)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41732895)

Should we expect a baby boom in nine months?

Re:Productivity up (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732965)

More blind and hairy hand people, probably.

Re:Productivity up (4, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 2 years ago | (#41733343)

Not from reddit users (or slashdotters for that matter).

Re:Productivity up (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#41733045)

If this lasts all week, and slashdot goes down, who knows what heights I could attain! Maybe two or three levels in borderlands 2!

iLluminati (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733291)

This is a perfect FLUSHOUT of the Illuminati ...Illuminatti ... no wait ...the Eloominaughty...er... hold on....

Anyway, it IS a conspriracy ..conspiracy..whatever!That's my proof!!

But But But (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732713)

It's the cloud! It's like never like down, and webscale!

Re:But But But (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733127)

Unfortunately they don't use MongoDB. If they dod, this would have never happened.

Interestingly enough... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732717)

Since no one can go on reddit, they will come back to /. only to find out why reddit is down!

Re:Interestingly enough... (1)

KodaK (5477) | about 2 years ago | (#41732847)

Confirmed.

Re:Interestingly enough... (2, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 2 years ago | (#41733183)

Hey, confirming is Netcraft's job!

Re:Interestingly enough... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733279)

Long string of responses? Increasingly off-topic? Heavy use of in-jokes? Yep, these are redditors!

Re:Interestingly enough... (3, Informative)

KodaK (5477) | about 2 years ago | (#41733321)

All of those things were done here before they were done at reddit. You might want to get a new prescription for your rose colored glasses.

Re:Interestingly enough... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733425)

All of those things were done here before they were done at reddit. You might want to get a new prescription for your rose colored glasses.

But you have to give them credit, Reddit is tops when it comes to off-topic meme bullshit and oversized, lousy photoshops in the "me too" reply that every single fucking person on that site has to throw behind a post.

Re:Interestingly enough... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733541)

Long strings of nonsense happen here as well, but they are the exception at slashdot, and the rule at reddit.

Too many stories there contain slews of threads that go on complete tangents once they are 2-3 comments deep. And within those threads, most comments are single-word or single-line, nearly all meme-based.

Methinks CmdrTaco was right when he replaced the karma counter with the generalized karma status. Collecting points becomes a stupid game that undermines conversation.

Re:Interestingly enough... (1)

Tenareth (17013) | about 2 years ago | (#41733209)

And it worked, too.

Other Victims (4, Informative)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41732719)

Coursera is also down as a result.

define "leading" ... (4, Funny)

magarity (164372) | about 2 years ago | (#41732721)

/. is working just fine.

Are those karma points in the mail?

Re:define "leading" ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732993)

Personally I only come to slashdot when reddit is down.

Oblig (4, Funny)

sortius_nod (1080919) | about 2 years ago | (#41732723)

It's as if millions of geek voices cried out in terror & were suddenly silenced.

Re:Oblig (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732857)

It's as if sorties_nod can't find a new meme after 35 years.

Re:Oblig (2)

sortius_nod (1080919) | about 2 years ago | (#41733005)

Holy shit, when did memes get banned from the internet?

Re:Oblig (3, Funny)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 years ago | (#41733123)

Holy shit, when did memes get banned from the internet?

reddit is down, he is expecting to see nothing but NEW shitty in-jokes and hasty photoshops as he takes refuge from the storm... your attempt to re-use old humor would normally earn you a downvote but he cant find the thumb buttons on this jalopy of a website.

Re:Oblig (1)

michrech (468134) | about 2 years ago | (#41733311)

I think Natalie Portman and the Hot Grits had something to do with it...

Holy shit, when did memes get banned from the internet?

Re:Oblig (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732865)

Alternatively with Reddit in mind:

And there was much rejoicing.

Re:Oblig (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732939)

How about: andnothingofvaluewaslost?

Re:Oblig (2)

Bigby (659157) | about 2 years ago | (#41733163)

If a geek cries out in terror and there's not site to read it on, do they really cry out in terror?

Single AZ my butt (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732737)

We are seeing EBS problems across multiple AZs with our services, as are many others. Amazon is downplaying the issue.

See HN for ongoing discussion as well: http://news.ycombinator.com/

Re:Single AZ my butt (1)

SlippyToad (240532) | about 2 years ago | (#41733295)

Yeah, I'm in southern Indiana and Reddit has been down all day.

Re:Single AZ my butt (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733461)

If you're in southern Indiana, you have bigger problems than Reddit being down.

Re:Single AZ my butt (1)

tibman (623933) | about 2 years ago | (#41733585)

Like when you ask for Tea and the waitress doesn't know if you mean southerner Sweet Tea or northerner style Unsweetened Tea?

Same region as the storm in June (4, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 years ago | (#41732739)

Bad luck if you're hosted in the US-East-1 Region [amazon.com] , I guess.

Heh, I should really start advertising the LVS clusters I tend to as 'private clouds with better uptime than Amazon'.

Re:Same region as the storm in June (2)

malakai (136531) | about 2 years ago | (#41733297)

According to amazon, it's not an outage, it's a "performance disruption". My guess is, this will negate costly concessions based on SLA's.

Re:Same region as the storm in June (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733515)

According to amazon, it's not an outage, it's a "performance disruption". My guess is, this will negate costly concessions based on SLA's.

And at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant it wasn't a "meltdown", it was a "fission surplus".

Re:Same region as the storm in June (3, Informative)

RulerOf (975607) | about 2 years ago | (#41733469)

Real bad luck.

Desk phones and SIP clients out for 2.5 hours for me. Calls rolled over at the provider level like they were supposed to though. Didn't think I'd have to put that to the test so soon.

The server qualifies for the free tier, and that's probably why it just went straight unresponsive for two hours. Maybe I should upgrade to a slightly larger paid/reserved instance and..... Wait, I smell conspiracy.

Low Availability? (4, Interesting)

mkosmo (768069) | about 2 years ago | (#41732755)

I have to admit, due to this outage I just logged in to Slashdot for the first time in a year. We're experiencing our own outages at work, unrelated to AWS, but I'd hate to be an AWS admin during one of these major outages. This makes me wonder why Reddit, Imgur, etc., don't have presences in multiple availability zones to prevent this kind of outage.

Re:Low Availability? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732769)

>Reddit, Imgur, etc., don't have presences in multiple availability zones to prevent this kind of outage

They do. It's a multi-AZ outage, despite what Amazon is saying.

Re:Low Availability? (1)

ShaggusMacHaggis (178339) | about 2 years ago | (#41732837)

yeah my ec2 instance that is hosted in east-1a is up and the management console tells me it's just east-1d that is down...but i have a hard time believing that

Re:Low Availability? (4, Insightful)

segedunum (883035) | about 2 years ago | (#41733113)

Remember that availability zone 'a' might be 'd' for others. Amazon does not let you work out what availability zones everyone really has.

Re:Low Availability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732863)

They may but it doesn't seem as if there sites are capable of running without all the zones being up.

Re:Low Availability? (1)

i_hate_robots (922668) | about 2 years ago | (#41732943)

how do you know it's a multi-az outage?

Re:Low Availability? (5, Interesting)

segedunum (883035) | about 2 years ago | (#41733093)

They do. It's a multi-AZ outage, despite what Amazon is saying.

Amazon's multiple availability zones stuff is total bullshit. It has become painfully apparent during every single one of these outages that the so-called availability zones are not separate because an EBS problem propagates everywhere. No one can actually work the availability zones out either because what Amazon cunningly does is call zones by different letters for different customers, so availability zone 'a' for one might be availability zone 'c' for another so no one can actually compare. That fact alone sent my bullshit meter off the scale. It just seems excessively evasive and sneaky for my taste.

If you want redundancy you are going to have to go to completely geographically separate zones. Keeping those zones in sync is prohibitively expensive for the vast majority. Either that or you have a backup cloud provider, but again you have to be so paranoid and trust Amazon so little that you have to be able to have your data out and off Amazon's infrastructure at least nightly at a moment's notice. Sorry, but that just doesn't work.

Re:Low Availability? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733257)

Seems to me that the answer is just to host things yourself, instead of relying on another company's infrastructure.

Re:Low Availability? (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | about 2 years ago | (#41733327)

That's old Web-2.0 thinking. We're in the era of the cloud now, and the cloud is magic. Trust the cloud.

Re:Low Availability? (4, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#41733565)

Seems to me that the answer is just to host things yourself, instead of relying on another company's infrastructure.

How do you host anything without relying on another company's infrastructure? Do you purchase right-of-way's between your site and all of your customers and string your own fiber? Do you run your own power plant? Do you build your own UPS, right down to the batteries so you don't need to trust a UPS vendor? Do you build and service your own CRAC's?

It's impossible for any company to *not* rely on another company's infrastructure even if just for internet connectivity, the only question is where to draw the line - do you really want to rack and stack your own servers? Do you trust a vendor to do periodic preventative maintenance on your generators, or do you use your own staff? Do you certify your own staff to service your fire suppression system, or do you contract out to a vendor? Do you want to own your own network equipment and do your own network admin? Do you want to swap out servers and disk drives when they fail? Do you keep staff electricians on-hand to take care of electrical issues? Do you want to run a 24x7 NOC to monitor and maintain your datacenter?

While a large company may be able to keep many of these tasks in-house, many small companies can't afford the staff it would take to control all of their infrastructure.

Re:Low Availability? (2, Informative)

i_hate_robots (922668) | about 2 years ago | (#41733445)

Multi AZ IS "completely geographically separate zones" and yes, you can specifically define which ones. Amazon is very clear that US East 1a,b,c,d are all the same physical data center. However, West is not. It's in Oregon (as opposed to VA for East) I've seen no evidence that true Multi AZ instances (as described by Amazon) are down. If you've got some though, I would be interested to see it because I would be pretty concerned.

Re:Low Availability? (1)

Mephistophocles (930357) | about 2 years ago | (#41733439)

It's a multi-AZ outage, despite what Amazon is saying.

And/or AZ's aren't quite as physically isolated as Amazon makes out, which I've suspected for a while.

Re:Low Availability? (5, Interesting)

segedunum (883035) | about 2 years ago | (#41732951)

We're experiencing our own outages at work, unrelated to AWS, but I'd hate to be an AWS admin during one of these major outages.

I used to be an admin working on AWS through some of these outages, and it's not pleasant let me tell you. The amount of redundancy you need to get through this makes putting stuff in the cloud prohibitively expensive and things are basically out of your hands. When you run your own servers you know how long it will take to replace a piece of hardware or take emergency measures to keep things running. At least you know you have control over the process. Amazon? They recover what they can of your EBS disks in a few days without telling you anything and in the case of the European outage they actually screwed the EBS snapshots with a recovery job they ran. Thankfully I ran backups every night that took all data off Amazon's system. All I didn't know was when I could be back up and running.

Using AWS for throwaway computing where you just want some computing power for a few weeks of the year? Yes, fine. Permanently running stuff in it? Nope.

Re:Low Availability? (4, Interesting)

segedunum (883035) | about 2 years ago | (#41733397)

....and in the case of the European outage they actually screwed the EBS snapshots with a recovery job they ran. Thankfully I ran backups every night that took all data off Amazon's system. All I didn't know was when I could be back up and running.

I felt this was worth emphasising. These are EBS snapshots, not just the EBS disks - the ones supposedly stored in S3 and immune to corruption. Your backups, in other words. If you use RDS you rely on these completely for backup.

AWS is OK to get yourself up and running without paying huge amounts up front for hardware, but be aware that you just simply cannot trust this infrastructure.

Bright and Sunny Skies Today! (4, Insightful)

IonOtter (629215) | about 2 years ago | (#41732771)

Do you still think that putting your digital life in the "cloud", without any ability to fall back on a physical hard drive or device, is a good idea?

Re:Bright and Sunny Skies Today! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732813)

yes

Re:Bright and Sunny Skies Today! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732853)

Because physical servers don't ever fail?

Re:Bright and Sunny Skies Today! (2)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 2 years ago | (#41733135)

No but you can make them reliable if needed.
In the cloud you're at the mercy of the beancounters at Amazon & co.

Re:Bright and Sunny Skies Today! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733467)

You are always at the mercy of someone else's beancounters even if you run your own datacenter.

Re:Bright and Sunny Skies Today! (4, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#41732887)

Do you still think that putting your digital life in the "cloud", without any ability to fall back on a physical hard drive or device, is a good idea?

My first thoughts as well.

A friend was recently telling me about an issue they were having at work ... they host stuff for other people, and have very high-availability SLAs. Unfortunately, the support they have from some of their own internal people is "weekdays 9-5". So when an outage happened, they were dead in the water, because their own people basically said "sorry, we don't do after hours support".

Your SLA is only as good as your weakest link. Granted, some of these sites may not have SLAs, but if you have an external vendor providing some of this stuff, and their service levels suck, then your service level can't be any better.

For me, I can't see why companies would be willing to do this kind of thing. The risks are just too high.

Re:Bright and Sunny Skies Today! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733015)

For me, I can't see why companies would be willing to do this kind of thing. The risks are just too high.

That's because you don't have an MBA.

Re:Bright and Sunny Skies Today! (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#41733107)

So when an outage happened, they were dead in the water, because their own people basically said "sorry, we don't do after hours support".

This is not a system failure, it's a Human Resources failure.

Re:Bright and Sunny Skies Today! (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#41733165)

Your SLA is only as good as your weakest link.

It seems like Amazon's weakest link is Virginia.
I recall from the last Amazon outage thread on /. that Virginia seems to be the epicenter for epic fail.

Re:Bright and Sunny Skies Today! (4, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#41733381)

Your SLA is only as good as your weakest link. Granted, some of these sites may not have SLAs, but if you have an external vendor providing some of this stuff, and their service levels suck, then your service level can't be any better.

For me, I can't see why companies would be willing to do this kind of thing. The risks are just too high.

Because many companies are not willing to spend what it takes to get availability greater than what they can get at Amazon - especially if they take advantage of multi-AZ or multi-region redundancy.

Sure, having a physical server at the office that you know you can fix by buying parts at the local computer store sounds attractive. Until the day you find that your building has burnt to the ground. Or a truck knocked over the utility pole providing network and electricity to your building. Or you discover that when you looked at the flood maps to make sure you weren't in a flood zone, the maps didn't account for a water main breaking and flooding the basement where your telecom equipment is... or the clogged roof drains that let 20,000 gallons of water to build up on the roof during a rainstorm until the roof collapsed and flooded your datacenter. Or the earthquake (or hurricane or tornado or flood or whatever) that takes down your site for days or weeks or even months, and your employees are more concerned with surviving than trying to get your critical systems back online.

Meeting an SLA for your own facility only works when that facility is running, and often the company that rents office space has little control over the facility.

My company has a number critical services running in one Amazon region with replication to a second region for failover. The second region costs very little, just a single instance to hold data replicated from the primary instance, then if we need to spin up the servers in the secondary region, it takes about 10 minutes to push the data from the local copy to the other servers once we start them up.

We could automate the whole process, but Amazon problems are rare enough that it hasn't been worth it.

We do have a couple servers in us-east-1a but so far those servers appear to be fine, although the AWS management interface has not been working for managing servers in that region/AZ. If we ran servers out of our local office instead of Amazon, we would have had at least 2 instances of complete downtime in the past year - one 3 hour internet outage, and a 48 hour power failure on a weekend when a transformer blew and the power company didn't have an available spare and had to truck it in from out of area.

Re:Bright and Sunny Skies Today! (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 2 years ago | (#41733553)

You're talking like hosting your own servers on premises or being in the cloud are your only choices. You could also rent space in a high quality data center and replicate you data out to another high quality datacenter where you also rent space in a different geographic location. Then, when your primary data center goes down, you switch over to the other one. Or run off both at the same time if your architecture allows you do do that. That basically covers you in most instances. If both your rented datacenters go out at the same time, and they are in different locations, there's probably much bigger things to worry about. Or you didn't pick very good datacenters in the first place.

Re:Bright and Sunny Skies Today! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732997)

Yes

I don't... (1)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#41733021)

My life and business doesn't rely on ANY internet based social service things and I make sure my customers are not dependent on social media to know whats going on with my business. Hell even if the internet would go down I still have a phone book and a land line.

Re:I don't... (2)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41733187)

Hell even if the internet would go down I still have a phone book and a land line.

Hey, me too! It's always good to have things lying around to club people with when civilization ends.

Re:Bright and Sunny Skies Today! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733121)

Do you still think that putting your digital life in the "cloud", without any ability to fall back on a physical hard drive or device, is a good idea?

The "cloud" is nothing more than somebody else's physical hard drive or device.

In other words, Somebody Else's Problem.

multi AZ? (4, Interesting)

i_hate_robots (922668) | about 2 years ago | (#41732781)

An honest question, why don't these large, big-name sites utilize the Multi Availability Zone failover that Amazon offers? It seems these AWS outages make for good headlines, but shouldn't any large site be co-located in multiple physical locations to ensure uptime? If they WERE using Multi AZ, or there is some other technical reason why it wouldn't help, I'm really curious to know why...

Re:multi AZ? (1)

segedunum (883035) | about 2 years ago | (#41733241)

An honest question, why don't these large, big-name sites utilize the Multi Availability Zone failover that Amazon offers?

They do. Plenty of people do. The problem is that these EBS failures always propagate across availability zones no matter what Amazon says.

If they WERE using Multi AZ, or there is some other technical reason why it wouldn't help, I'm really curious to know why...

Because you have no hard experience of what multiple availability zones practically means in Amazon's infrastructure.

Re:multi AZ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733429)

If they WERE using Multi AZ, or there is some other technical reason why it wouldn't help, I'm really curious to know why...

Because you have no hard experience of what multiple availability zones practically means in Amazon's infrastructure.

All this downtime is GP's fault? Was he running AWS or something? What do you know that we don't, segedunum?

Re:multi AZ? (1)

i_hate_robots (922668) | about 2 years ago | (#41733539)

They do. Plenty of people do. The problem is that these EBS failures always propagate across availability zones no matter what Amazon says.

Do you have any evidence of this? Because I haven't seen any. And it sounds tin-foil-hat.

Because you have no hard experience of what multiple availability zones practically means in Amazon's infrastructure.

Actually, I run a load-balanced, redundant site on AWS. I ask the question because Multi-AZ (as defined by AWS) means geographically different, as in US West (in Oregon) vs US East (in Virginia) - NOT just the difference between US-East-1a,b,c,d (which Amazon makes very clear are in the same data center). That's why it's odd that Virginia's issues would affect Oregon (or any of the other AZs) Try being helpful next time and answering the genuine question instead of smarting off because you can't get on reddit.

Re:multi AZ? (1)

Pinhedd (1661735) | about 2 years ago | (#41733595)

Multi-AZ is only available for certain services. It's slower and costs twice as much. There's also replication delay issues between multi-AZ instances.

Re:multi AZ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733273)

Money! It costs a lot more to go multi AZ. The only real reason that the use the cloud is the same reason most people use OSS, low cost! Multi AZ negates the low cost attribute.

Re:multi AZ? (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#41733419)

An honest question, why don't these large, big-name sites utilize the Multi Availability Zone failover that Amazon offers?

It seems these AWS outages make for good headlines, but shouldn't any large site be co-located in multiple physical locations to ensure uptime?

If they WERE using Multi AZ, or there is some other technical reason why it wouldn't help, I'm really curious to know why...

There are rumors floating around that this affects more than one AZ - I'd never host critical infrastructure entirely in a single region even across multiple AZ's - much better to have it spread across multiple regions would eliminate most failure modes that could affect one region (like an East Coast Hurricane).

Re:multi AZ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733431)

Because it isn't an easy problem to solve. The biggest issue is always the database backend. Cassandra is pretty much the only DB that can run multi-region without much effort. However, Cassandra presents a ton of problems it self ... its just not good for production. When it fails, it fails *VERY* badly.

MySQL, MongoDB, Redis, etc all have single points of failure. MongoDB sharded will fail when a single MongoC instance disappears.

But the cloud is so much better to use! (2)

BetaDays (2355424) | about 2 years ago | (#41732787)

But the cloud is so much better to use!

Re:But the cloud is so much better to use! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732883)

What, you think outages don't occur in non "cloud" hosting situations?

If these sites were properly architected for high availability (i.e. multi AZ setups), they would be up still, though perhaps with degraded performance.

Service is provided by an online retailer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732815)

Service is provided by an online retailer.... need I say more???

As Usual... (5, Funny)

broginator (1955750) | about 2 years ago | (#41732819)

There's an oblig xkcd: http://xkcd.com/908/ [xkcd.com] Guess someone tripped over the wire.

Re:As Usual... (1)

21mhz (443080) | about 2 years ago | (#41733555)

Nah, xkcd is down too.

Terrorism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732821)

Throw the fuckheads at Amazon in a dark hole!

other sites down (1)

Falc0n (618777) | about 2 years ago | (#41732833)

turntable.fm is also down -- I guess the NYC tech startup community is going crazy right now. Time to diversify!

To the dudes working at AWS (1)

ctime (755868) | about 2 years ago | (#41732917)

This too shall pass

No Fancy Uptime Numbers for them (2)

NinjaTekNeeks (817385) | about 2 years ago | (#41732923)

Looks like there won't be any fancy reports about the "cloud" having spectacular up times, with over an hour passed they can no longer claim more than 3 nines uptime.

Re:No Fancy Uptime Numbers for them (3, Insightful)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41733133)

Well... as it's currently referred to, the "cloud" is a singular entity. So, as long as there's one single server running as part of that infrastructure, you could weasel your way around any downtime and reassure the ignorant masses that "the cloud" is is still up, even if the only remaining piece is a Raspberry Pi running over a cable modem in some guy's basement.

Hey, look everybody, the cloud is still up! You can't do near as much as you usually can, but it's up! 100% uptime! Woo!

oh noes! (-1, Offtopic)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#41732933)

Ehrmagawd!

Now all those little kids on Reddit will have to get their news elsewhere.

In other news, the amount of -1 Troll comments on /. just increased by a factor of 18.

Why does this still happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733055)

The tech is available to amazon to migrate running vms from one cluster to another. Why do we still have these outages.

Amazon all of the problems of hosting stuff yourself and all of the problems of cloud hosting with out any of the advantages. I have single boxes at my house running on cable modems that have better uptime than EC2 right now. (baring a few power outages cause I don't have ups on my crap :-(, )

Again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733077)

This keeps happening.

Amazon claims "degraded performance" in EBS. But, then RAID rebuilding and instance migration/failover increases the load so much that everything else around it crashes as well.

This is yet another major outage for hundreds of (some) significant sites and apps. I'd call it a cloud burst.

Amazon is dead (1)

AragornSonOfArathorn (454526) | about 2 years ago | (#41733099)

Netcraft confirms it.

wow, mainframe problems in the cloud (4, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | about 2 years ago | (#41733101)

If only there were some lessons learned over decades and decades of mainframe use that that could be applied to the cloud.

Re:wow, mainframe problems in the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733567)

Anyone that actually used mainframes in the real world tell you they went down too. The difference is the people using had an excuse to slack off and it wasn't publicized around the world every time.

The Cloud makes everything awesome! (1)

1_brown_mouse (160511) | about 2 years ago | (#41733115)

These sites load so much faster.

Is storage that expensive or is it the bandwidth costs associated with them?

Ahhhhh.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733175)

I love the smell of cloud failure in the afternoon..

Sick day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733281)

Should I take a sick day for a loved one?

W00t 7p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733303)

volume of N3tBSD already dead. It is the reaper BSD's a need to play project. Today, as The party in strret hand...don't already aware, *BSD And easy - only but it's not a In addition, hapless *BSD world's Gay Nigger irc network. The IS DYING LIKE THE By fundamental Significantly elected, we took world will have Fanatic known Those uber-asshole OpenBSD guys. They The hard drive to (7000+1400+700)*4 are about 7000/5 from the sidelines, than this BSD box, it there. Bring get tough. I hope sadness And it was

That's what they get for *outsourcing* (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733353)

It's the same error in logic as trusting an "source" to be "fact" because it acts like it's a cool "authority": It seems people have forgotten the concept of personal trust relationships, and either trust something not at all or trust something blindly. ...like some "cloud" that doesn't even have any fucking meaning other than being a buzzword to trick PHBs.

And the worst part: Studies have found, that counter-arguments only *strengthen* the misbelief. Because it's a *belief*. Not rational thinking. People base their self-acceptance of being somebody who does the right decisions. So of course, everybody will just go on, keep using "the cloud", and find some elephant-in-the-room-ignoring property to praise, like "look, how fast they came back up".

habit forming (1)

samjam (256347) | about 2 years ago | (#41733427)

This zapping people's data is getting to be habit forming for Amazon I think.

I guess we're just waiting to hear if it was a mistake or on purpose.

Failing at Cloud is Unacceptable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41733509)

Why is it that these same companies keep failing at cloud instead of learning from their mistakes and using technology like failover and high availability that has been around for years to ensure that if their is an outage their service remains online and solid? A single point of failure should never cripple a site or service.

http://benjaminkerensa.com/2012/06/30/reflecting-on-netflix-instagram-pinterest-downtime
http://www.brandonholtsclaw.com/blog/2012/how-not-to-fail-at-the-cloud/

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?