[p1necone]

> it's clear that businesses that maintain their own infrastructure would've avoided today's AWS' outage.

Sure, that's trivially obvious. But how many other outages would they have had instead because they aren't as experienced at running this sort of infrastructure as AWS is?

You seem to be arguing from the a priori assumption that rolling your own is inherently more stable than renting infra from AWS, without actually providing any justification for that assumption.

You also seem to be under the assumption that any amount of downtime is always unnacceptable, and worth spending large amounts of time and effort to avoid. For a lot of businesses systems going down for a few hours every once in a while just isn't a big deal, and is much more preferable than spending thousands more on cloud bills, or hiring more full time staff to ensure X 9s of uptime.

[imiric]

You and GP are making the same assumption that my DevOps engineers _aren't_ as experienced as AWS' are. There are plenty of engineers capable of maintaining an in-house infrastructure running X 9s because, again, the complexity comes from the scale AWS operates at. So we're both arguing with an a priori assumption that the grass is greener on our side.

To be fair, I'm not saying never use cloud providers. If your systems require the complexity cloud providers simplify, and you operate at a scale where it would be prohibitively expensive to maintain yourself, by all means go with a cloud provider. But it's clear that not many companies are prepared for this type of failure, and protecting against it is not trivial to accomplish. Not to mention the conceptual overhead and knowledge required with dealing with the provider's specific products, APIs, etc. Whereas maintaining these systems yourself is transferrable across any datacenter.