It's not "going down", the servers just went on strike in solidarity with europe-west9 (Paris) to protest against too much server uptime past 5 PM, thermal abuse, low voltages and mass PID killings. Americans won't understand. Additionally the failover data packets got stuck in customs for inspection and had to form a line back to Dover. So yeah, bad day innit.

You still have to design for outages. It's when, not if. Bad things happen - fires, floods, power outages etc.

Sounds like most of these companies were not designed to handle outages in a single availability zone, and so they went down.

Cloud is just an really expensive vps with an api, you still got to leverage that api to replicate your service

It's literally just a bunch of computers in a couple of expensive buildings. Of course it can go down.

The main selling points were auto-scaling and not having to self-host. Or, on a higher level, outsourcing accountability, being able to point at someone else if something goes wrong, as exemplified by the present case.

It makes no sense only if you believe in magic and marketing

>clown infra

If you log in onto machine and make an error, a machine is down.

If you put everything into configuration management, make scalable, redundant and interconnected servers and services built on top of it, you unlock amazing possibility of one error bringing hundreds if not thousands machines down.

Nice lil reminder that adding more things for redundancy only increases it if they are entirely unrelated to eachother and independent.

Which INCLUDES not running same software. You can have redundant switches, doesn't matter if they have software bug that triggers on all of them (or just one in a way that prevents network from working correctly).

You can have database cluster that can tolerate node dying just fine but still be brought down by a bug despise redundancy.