> AWS has the most granular reporting, as it shows every service in every region. If an incident occurs that impacts three services, all three of those services would light up red. If those were unavailable for one hour, AWS would record three hours of downtime.
Was this reflected in their bar graph or not?
Also, GCP has had a number of global events, e.g. the inability to modify any load balancer for >3 hours last year, which AWS has NEVER had (unless you count when AWS was the only cloud with one region).
While I would like to say AWS hasn't had that issue, in 2017 it did (just not because of load balancers being unavailable, but as a consequence of the S3 outage [1].
When the primary S3 nodes went down, it caused connectivity issues to S3 buckets globally, and services like RDS, SES, SQS, Load Balancers, etc etc, all relied on getting config information from the "hidden" S3 buckets, thus people couldn't edit load balancers.
(Outage also meant they couldn't update their own status page! [2])
ti_ranger|6 years ago
> AWS has the most granular reporting, as it shows every service in every region. If an incident occurs that impacts three services, all three of those services would light up red. If those were unavailable for one hour, AWS would record three hours of downtime.
Was this reflected in their bar graph or not?
Also, GCP has had a number of global events, e.g. the inability to modify any load balancer for >3 hours last year, which AWS has NEVER had (unless you count when AWS was the only cloud with one region).
mystcb|6 years ago
When the primary S3 nodes went down, it caused connectivity issues to S3 buckets globally, and services like RDS, SES, SQS, Load Balancers, etc etc, all relied on getting config information from the "hidden" S3 buckets, thus people couldn't edit load balancers.
(Outage also meant they couldn't update their own status page! [2])
[1]: https://aws.amazon.com/message/41926/ [2]: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/01/aws_s3_outage/
hansflying|6 years ago
[deleted]