[vkgfx]

>Facepalm in the form of $100Ms in service credits.

Part of me wonders how much they're actually going to pay out, given that their own status page has only indicated five services with moderate ("Increased API Error Rates") disruptions in service.

[sitharus]

That public status page has no bearing on service credits, it's a statically hosted page updated when there's significant public impact. A lot of issues never make it there.

Every AWS customer has a personal health dashboard that links the issues to their services which is updated much faster, and links issues to your affected resources. Additionally requests for credits are done by the customer service team who have even more information.

[JPKab]

Utter lies on that page. Multiple services listed as green aren't working for me or my team.

[conanbatt]

This point is repeated often, and the incentives for Amazon to downplay the actual downtime are definitely there.

Wouldn't affected companies be incentivized to make a lawsuit about AMZ lying about status? It would be easy to prove and costly to defend from AWS standpoint.

[CrazyCatDog]

Suggesting that when the status page sends a status request and hears no response—it defaults to green—hear no evil and see no evil —> report no evil

Either way—overt lies or engineering incompetence—it’s disappointing!

[skj]

Pretty low chance that the status page is automated, especially via health checks. I imagine it's a static asset updated by hand.

[jandrese]

Or the service that updates the status page runs out of us-east-1.

[erhk]

It has customer relationship implications. I guarantee you it is updated by a support agent.

[zainhoda]

https://stop.lying.cloud