• 2deck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I remember SLAs including ‘five nines’ ensurances. That meant 99.999% uptime or an allowance of 26 seconds of downtime a month. That would be unheard of nowadays because no cloud provider can ensure that they will have that uptime.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    The cloud is just someone else’s computer. And that computer is busy printing AI videos of the President pooping out of a fighter jet, so now your files are inaccessible

  • rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    If you properly divide your instances between providers and regions and use load balancing which uses a corum of 3 availability model then it can be zero downtime pretty fairly guaranteed.

    People be cheap and easy tho, so 🤷‍♂️

      • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Screw the compute budget, the tripled team size without shipping any more features is a bigger problem here.

        • figjam@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 minutes ago

          I’ve seen the opposite. “Oh, you moved your app to the cloud and rebuilt it to be full cicd and self healing? Cool. Your team of 15 is now 3.”

    • FishFace@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Dividing between providers is not what people would be doing if the resilience of cloud services were as is being memed about.

      Doing so is phenomenally expensive.

      • rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Doing so is phenomenally expensive.

        It’s demonstrably little more expensive than running more instances on the same provider. I only say -little- because there is a marginal administrative overhead.

        • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          It’s phenomenally expensive from a practical standpoint, it takes an immense amount of engineering and devops effort to make this work for non trivial production applications.

          It’s egregiously expensive from an engineering standpoint. And most definitely more expensive from a cloud bill standpoint as well.

          We’re doing this right now with a non trivial production application built for this, and it’s incredibly difficult to do right. It affects EVERYTHING, from the ground up. The level of standardization and governance that goes into just making things stable across many teams takes an entire team to make possible.

          • rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 hour ago

            In my experience using containers has removed requirements for additional engineering cost to deploy between providers because a container is the same wherever it’s running, and all the providers will offer container hosting, and most offer cluster private networking.

            Deployment is simplified using something like octopus which can deploy to many destinations in a blue-green fashion with easy rollback.

        • FishFace@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          The administrative overhead and the overhead of engineering everything to with multiple vendors is what is massive

        • rainwall@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          Only if you engineered your stack using vendor neutral tools, which is not what each cloud provider encourages you to do.

          Then the adminstrative overhead of multi-cloud gets phenomenally painful.

            • Lysergid@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Infrastructure is there to be used by apps/services. It doesn’t matter how it’s created if infrastructure across providers does not provide same API. You can’t use GCP storage SDK to call AWS s3. Even if API would be same, nothing guarantees consistent behavior. Just like JPA provides API but implementations and DBs behavior are inconsistent

              • felbane@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 hour ago

                You can use the S3 API to interop with basically every major provider. For most core components there are either interop APIs or libraries that translate into provider-native APIs.

                It’s 100% doable to build a provider-agnostic stack from the iac all the way up to the application itself.

            • rainwall@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              6 hours ago

              Yeah, Terraform or it’s FOSS fork would be ideal, but many of these infrastructures are setup by devs, using the “immediately in front of them” tools that each cloud presents. Decoupling everything back to neutral is the same nightmare as migrating any stack to any other stack.

              • felbane@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 hour ago

                Definitely. I go through that same nightmare every time I have to onboard some new acquisition whose devops was the startup cfo’s nephew.