[vhiremath4]

The amount of time you are down vs. up dictates your SLOs and SLAs. Criticism of how reliable one vs. another is is not only valid, it's backed by hundreds of millions of contractual dollars and credits every year. We spend tens of millions on AWS per year. We have several SLAs with them. Our Elasticache SLA was breached once (localized to us - not whole customer base) and we got credits which were commensurate with the amount of business we lost during that downtime period.

If one provider is down more than the others, the criticism is not only valid, it results in real business loss for the provider and its customers.

On multi-cloud: it's one way to reduce the amount of downtime you have, but it comes with a significant operational cost depending on how your application is architected and how your teams internal to your company are formed. It is totally practical for someone to bank on AWS' reliability until they're at a significant amount of traction or revenue where the added uptime of going multicloud is worth the investment. I know you're not saying this isn't the case (I think you're saying "do that if you're going to complain about 1 providers' uptime"), but thought it was worth putting the context into the HN ether.

[dehrmann]

You definitely need to look at your SLA with your customers, but in my experience, multi-cloud isn't worth it. It's easier to be slightly less reliable, and throw your top-three cloud provider under the bus in the public post mortem. You'll probably cause bigger outages on your own in between provider outages, and multi-cloud adds another layer of complexity for things to go wrong.

Multi-cloud is saying you think you can manage Kafka across two or three clouds better than GCP can manage Pub/Sub.