In 2008, the idea was that if you bundle up a large bunch of mortgages, then the bundle will have low risk because the chances of everything failing at the same time is low. The cloud is designed so that resource usage spikes of individual customers can always be served because one customer is very small compared to the whole infrastructure.
However, in some cases, these mortgages/resource spikes become highly correlated.
If every gym member visited the gym at the same time, they wouldn't all fit. Only a small fraction of the members use the gym at any one time, so it works.
Banks would crash if everyone tried to withdraw their money at the same time, but they don't, so the bank can loan the money out.
> Only a small fraction of the members use the gym at any one time
Only a fraction of the members use the gym at all. If every member of the gym wanted to use it there would be no reasonable schedule to make that possible. ~50% of gym members use it less than 100 times per year, and only ~25% use it consistently.
For banks depending on legislation they have to keep 0/3/10% in reserves, depending on the size of the bank. Which is far worse than most clouds or gyms would ever offer.
Garbage collectors, like clouds, have usage based pricing, and cannot handle everyone spiking at once. They can handle everyone at normal baseline usage, but that's just like saying a cloud provider can handle everyone using the same number of reserved instances they’ve purchased on a long-term basis.
More relevant to the cloud analogy, if all their customers wanted to purchase a large extra pickup (beyond their normal baseline) on their normal day, which is part of garbage service offerings, they wouldn't be able to accommodate it.
That's really an interesting analogy. Of course all analogies are wrong BUT if AWS goes down, half the internet goes down (in terms of important services).
Just the US government. They even have special racist hiring policies to comply with the strict regulations set about who is allowed to be in the building where the US government holds your data.
I think it's very problematic that a major cloud provider is unable to update their status page, even when this has been ongoing for days.
All green ticks here: https://status.azure.com/en-us/status
1. Enter the URL of the cloud provider's status page into your browser and press enter.
2. If the status page loads instantly, all services are go.
3. If the status page takes between 2 and 5 seconds to serve, the cloud provider is experiencing a slowdown.
4. If the status page takes between 5 and 30 seconds to load, the cloud provider is experiencing a major problem.
5. If the status page takes between 30 seconds and 1 minute to load, requires you to refresh before you can see it, or fails to load completely such as with missing images, then the cloud provider is experiencing widespread problems in multiple regions and has only sporadic availability.
6. If the status page doesn't load at all, all services are down. Check the CEO's twitter page.
7. If the CEO's twitter page has a pinned tweet telling you not to worry, then all of your data has been lost.
From my experience, status pages usually are out of date unless they are internal. If you want the real info and are seeing issues on your end, check Twitter or open a ticket. Usually Twitter is faster.
I heard from an insider that some Azure services had a 10x growth because of the recent changes in our society. It's not like you can prepare for a 10x hit.
My personal experience for our AWS CI infra that it's struggling more and more recently. Builds are slower on average than a couple of weeks ago. Maybe those VCPUs are not the same VCPUs as yesterday ;D.
Feels like an opportunity for building a service that uses AWS, GCP or Azure based on which is cheapest at that moment + which is not "full"... Unless that already exists.
Lowest common denominator though. If you can use just plain old VMs, there's probably little value in using the big cloud vendors. Traditional hosting would be loads cheaper.
No, not running your own data center. Traditional server hosting. Rackspace, Liquidweb, Packet.net and similar.
Meaning that if you're going to use the lowest common denominator, why not pay fair market prices for egress and compute?
Any value in cloud is typically the services that are higher level than a VM. Those services would be hard to put a generic multi-cloud facade in front of. It would be brittle and bug ridden.
For my UG project, I am building a platform to provision, monitor and manage cloud resources from cloud providers including AWS, Digitalocean and GCP through a single web interface.
The platform also have the ability to deploy commonly used web applications like WordPress, Moodle, etc.
I will launch here in HN when the platform is ready to launch.
If you have any questions or suggestions, please let me know.
> Capacity constraints due to increased demand stemming from the global health pandemic are causing pipeline delays when using our hosted pools. We are working on mitigations, but currently expect the issue to persist for at least the rest of 25-March peak hours. You can work around these issues by temporarily moving critical pipelines to self-hosted agents.
Yep, people are finally realizing that 'cloud' isn't something magical and limitless. It's just a bunch of servers, connected together, with each having a limit as to how much data in can store and process.
It's understandable to be surprised, it's not every day everyone needs resources at once at the same time, although some foresight a month before couldn't have hurt
I think this introduces some interesting points to the DR and BCP conversation.
Is it a safe bet that we can rely on the cloud to have capacity? Normally I wouldn't doubt it but in this sort of situation is becomes more likely they will be put under capacity stress.
Will the cloud vendors learn and build slack in? I think they're very lean operations and maybe this kind of slack would damage the profitability too much.
If the cloud vendors can't guarantee capacity ( I suspect this will be the conclusion ) then what does they mean for our DR and BCP planning?
> Normally I wouldn't doubt it but in this sort of situation
Then you're very misinformed.
As a cloud administrator, I see resource availability and account limits on a weekly basis going back years.
I tell people:
- to pre-provision at least some extra servers rather than wait for an autoscaling operation to fail.
- that new instance types often are rolled out gradually, and lead time is often 1 month in AWS
- that killing a 1000-node cluster then expecting to immediately rebuild it often doesn't work.
- for DR and BCP planning, each region (or AZ) should be able to handle enough load at all times in case one region (or AZ) is unavailable. I've never seen anybody do that, even after I told them, because cost.
It starts having issues when you get to 5,000+ ec2 instances, but it's somewhat understandable that they don't aim to support that level of usage within a single AWS account.
On another bullet point: if you go serverless (API/HTTP Gateway, Lambda, Dynamo DB), you automatically get full region DR. I personally recommend HTTP Gateway if you can swing it, API gateway is only worth of it you are doing personal projects (mostly free tier) or are seriously leveraging the API gateway specific features
Seems like there's some confusion on what that one really does.
It only notifies you about your own Service Limits, so you will know before you hit one in an unfortunate moment. It's important to monitor that, but it doesn't protect or notify you against cloud provider's own limitations. A scale-out event can still fail if AWS has no more extra capacity ("full") even if your limits allow you otherwise.
AFAIK there's currently no way to know it beforehand if they actually have the capacity or not.
Assuming they expand the list of services it can provide, products like the AWS Outpost might be the eventual fix for that. Very expensive and limited right now though.
I'm watching many struggle also with on-prem VPNs, Citrix, WebEx, and so on. Though there do seem to be honest efforts to shore those up and also try more modern tools. I imagine a lot of stodgy companies will have a much better WFH environment after all the dust settles.
I'm running around fixing load balancers, SSL gateways, NetScalers, converting double-hop to single-hop access, upgrading key components, etc...
It's kinda fun, but it's also infuriating that 90% of our customers decided to wait until the week before the lockdown that we warned them would be coming months ago.
Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft. I have no particular info on this, but I did read the article _yesterday_ over breakfast, followed links to complaints, etc., and would like to point out two things:
2. The very last paragraph on the linked article reads: "Note that Azure is a huge service and it would be wrong to give disproportionate weight to a small number of reports. Most of Azure seems to be working fine. That said, capacity in the UK regions was showing signs of stress even before the current crisis, so it is not surprising that issues are occurring now."
All of this is public info, so maybe people should read up on facts first? :)
In 2008, the idea was that if you bundle up a large bunch of mortgages, then the bundle will have low risk because the chances of everything failing at the same time is low. The cloud is designed so that resource usage spikes of individual customers can always be served because one customer is very small compared to the whole infrastructure.
However, in some cases, these mortgages/resource spikes become highly correlated.