News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by stef25 on Thursday April 21, 2011 @08:03AM (#2470301)
Reddit's been down for several hours today, I'm sure they are already way lower 99.95%.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by JonnieCache on Thursday April 21, 2011 @08:05AM (#2470308)
0.05% of one year is 4 hours, 22 minutes and 48 seconds.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by cmurdock on Thursday April 21, 2011 @08:45AM (#2470392)
Reddit experienced some issues with Amazon a month ago that resulted in the site being down for almost a day. I'm pretty sure they're way below that percentage.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by forgotusername on Thursday April 21, 2011 @10:10AM (#2470656)
That's conflating SLAs again, Reddit's long-running problems have been with EBS reliability.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by cube13 on Thursday April 21, 2011 @11:16AM (#2470931)
Even so, .5% downtime per year is about 44 hours, and Reddit's definitely had more downtime in the last few months than that.

Of course, that's assuming that 100% of Reddit's problems were due to EBS only and not a combination of EBS, EC2 and their own code.

Re:Amazon Web Services are down by ssmoot on Thursday April 21, 2011 @10:56AM (#2470824)
Is this really standard practice for measuring the SLA? The contracts I've seen for a couple small businesses are generally per billable period.

Which always made sense to me. I pay you for 99.5% uptime this month. If you don't achieve it, then I get a discount, as simple as that. If your availability is below that, I don't pay full price for the billable period and then reconcile at the end of the year.

Any links or general advice on this topic anyone has I'd be pretty interested on finding out if there's a general consensus of it being done differently?

Re:Amazon Web Services are down by stef25 on Thursday April 21, 2011 @08:38AM (#2470367)
Don't forget to take in to account ALL of Reddit's downtime; there is quite a bit of it.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by bad_user on Thursday April 21, 2011 @08:22AM (#2470338)
Which means their entire quota for this year is all gone.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by yuvadam on Thursday April 21, 2011 @09:30AM (#2470523)
and then some...
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by asymptotic on Thursday April 21, 2011 @08:08AM (#2470313)
If the Reddit web server admins took availability seriously they would have chosen to deploy across more than one region. Do you disagree? Why do you disagree? I'm being honest, no snark involved in my questions.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by dspillett on Thursday April 21, 2011 @08:49AM (#2470399)
He wasn't suggesting that all Reddit's problems are due to Amazon services, he was using Reddit's down time today as a data point illustrating that the uptime guarantee claimed for the service has not been kept this year (in fact a whole year's "permitted downtime" as implied by the 99.95% SLA may be eaten on one day). Presumably Amazon will be handing out some refunds and other compensation (assuming the SLA isn't of the toothless "it'll be up at least 99.95% of the time, unless it isn't" variety).

Perhaps the Reddit admins decided that "up to 0.05%" downtime permitted by the SLA would be acceptable, compared to the extra expense of using more of Amazon's services (and any coding/testing time they may have needed to take advantage of the redundancy depending on how automatic the load balancing and/or failover are within Amazon's system) to improve their redundancy. By my understanding the promise isn't 99.95% if you use more than one of our locations, it is 99.95% at any one location, so the fact that Reddit don't make use of more than one location is irrelevant when talking about the one location they do use not meeting the expectations listed in the SLA.

I'm not saying Reddit's implementation decision is right (I don't have the metrics available to make such a judgement) but it would have been made based partly on that 99.95% figure and how much they trusted Amazon's method of coming to that figure as a reliability they could guarantee. If I had paid money for a service with a 99.95% SLA, unless the SLA had no teeth, I would be expecting some redress at this point (though there is probably no use nagging Amazon about that right now: let them concentrate on fixing the problem and worry about explanations/blame/compo later once things are running again).

Re:Amazon Web Services are down by trotsky on Thursday April 21, 2011 @10:07AM (#2470643)
Very few cloud SLA's seem to have teeth to me. Amazon's SLA gives service credit equal to 10% of your total bill for the billing period if they blow past the 0.05%. This is a lot better than some cloud providers that will simply prorate the downtime, but pretty crappy in terms of actual business compensation. It's equivalent to a sales discount almost any organization with a sales staff could write without thinking about it - meaning Amazon is still making money on every customer even when they've blown past their SLA - assuming every single customer fills out the forms to apply for the discount. Hint: Many won't, see mail in rebates.

A number of tier 1 network providers offer certain customers SLA's that are clearly in place to prove that they invest in redundancy and disaster planning. ex: less than 99.99% --> 10% credit. less than 99.90% --> no charges for the circuit in the billing period.

This reflects an understanding that downtime can hurt your business/infrastructure far in excess of the measurable percentage.

Re:Amazon Web Services are down by jedberg on Thursday April 21, 2011 @08:57AM (#2470424)
> If the Reddit web server admins took availability seriously

We do.

> they would have chosen to deploy across more than one region.

It's far too costly to do that. We are deployed across multiple AZs, but this failure hit multiple AZs.

Re:Amazon Web Services are down by jbellis on Thursday April 21, 2011 @09:44AM (#2470566)
Why is it more expensive to deploy in zones X,Y in regions A,B than zones M,N in region C? I assume you don't just mean "US West is ~10% more expensive than US East."
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by jedberg on Thursday April 21, 2011 @10:05AM (#2470638)
It's the combination of the extra cost of having machines in US West plus the cost of keeping the data synchronized between them (which is a lot) plus the added development overhead of making sure that things work cross region.

We'll get there one day, but we aren't there yet.

Re:Amazon Web Services are down by josephb on Thursday April 21, 2011 @09:10AM (#2470464)
> but this failure hit multiple AZs.

Gah! You can't always account for all the failure modes that Amazon might have.

Re:Amazon Web Services are down by asymptotic on Thursday April 21, 2011 @09:39AM (#2470550)
This seems to be a prevalent misunderstanding. Amazon's EC2 SLA of 99.95% applies at the scope of a region. A region may contain more than one availability zone. Hence, deploying on multiple availability zones still only affords the 99.95% availability level.

Yes, multi-region availability on AWS is hideously expensive. However, some organisations value an availability of greater than 99.95% enough to warrant such a multi-region deployment. Clearly reddit, and many, many other AWS users, do not. This isn't a value call on my part; I definitely couldn't afford the inter-region data transfer costs, all I know is that AWS offers you the tools to deploy high availability web services.

Re:Amazon Web Services are down by BrandonM on Thursday April 21, 2011 @11:11AM (#2470899)
Why does Reddit really need 99% availability? Is a customer unduly harmed or is the world even worse off if Reddit is down for a couple cumulative days per year? Is it worth the cost? Would you put up with more ads and/or pay for Reddit in order to make sure that it's available 24/7/365?
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by ry0ohki on Thursday April 21, 2011 @11:24AM (#2470967)
Probably not as much for the customer as for the company. When sites are unreliable, people end up going to the more reliable competitors as they arise.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by shasta on Thursday April 21, 2011 @01:58PM (#2471582)
I wouldn't think there a large number of customers deciding "this is too unreliable, I'm leaving" on the basis of a few hours of down time. On the other hand, there might be a large number of people who, upon finding your site down, decide to visit alternatives that are up at the time, and some of those people might decide they like the alternatives better.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by scorpion032 on Thursday April 21, 2011 @02:46PM (#2471781)
If any site can take down time and not lose users, reddit can. And it has.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by stef25 on Thursday April 21, 2011 @08:37AM (#2470364)
Not qualified to speak about what Reddit should or should not do about the arrangement with Amazon. I have read several posts, including one by an (ex) Reddit employee saying Amazon is not delivering what they said they would, that much is clear. I really doubt all their downtime is part of the SLA.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by bad_user on Thursday April 21, 2011 @08:24AM (#2470344)
The whole point of AWS is to forget about maintaining hardware infrastructure.

Amazon are the ones who should have made backups in multiple regions, and transfer the load on failure.

Re:Amazon Web Services are down by jasonkester on Thursday April 21, 2011 @08:42AM (#2470386)
Actually, the whole point of AWS is to have options for using hardware that you don't own. They don't offer any magic "all your stuff in one package, guaranteed to work all the time" service. So yes, you do still need to think about your hardware infrastructure. You just don't have to own it.

And Amazon does have all their stuff available in multiple regions. It's up to you to use it though.

Re:Amazon Web Services are down by ceejayoz on Thursday April 21, 2011 @09:38AM (#2470549)
> The whole point of AWS is to forget about maintaining hardware infrastructure.

If that were the case, you wouldn't be presented with region and availability zone options.

Re:Amazon Web Services are down by edanm on Thursday April 21, 2011 @08:38AM (#2470368)
"[S]hould" is the wrong word here. Clearly, they don't maintain such backups. This is clear to anyone using their service. They pay for the service anyway, so apparently it's still worth it to them, even without auto-backups.

Would it make sense for Amazon to maintain automatic backups (and potentially charge more for them)? I don't know. It might make business sense, it might not. But their service is apparently popular enough even without it.

Re:Amazon Web Services are down by JonnieCache on Thursday April 21, 2011 @09:46AM (#2470575)
Then it would be much more expensive at the bottom tiers, meaning I wouldn't be able to play with it on a whim without thinking about the money. That would suck.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by ayb on Thursday April 21, 2011 @09:10AM (#2470465)
Not sure if I could say Amazon should be doing that - but I'd love it if other value added providers (such as Heroku) could implement this.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by blhack on Thursday April 21, 2011 @11:05AM (#2470864)
http://cache-scale.appspot.com/c/www.reddit.com/

That's a cache of it. I really wish that the admins at reddit would implement something like this themselves, then link to it when downtime like this happens.

Re:Amazon Web Services are down by wallnutboy on Thursday April 21, 2011 @11:09AM (#2470887)
They do have a read-only mode, don't they? I'm not sure why they don't enable read-only mode when things like this happen. It may be that Amazon's service being down forbids this. I dunno.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by groovylick on Thursday April 21, 2011 @12:42PM (#2471283)
They have a read-only mode for "free" which is their akamai cache that the unlogged in users see.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by evolution on Thursday April 21, 2011 @12:05PM (#2471133)
do you have any stats of this app in terms of total data stored, bandwidth required per day, requests per second?
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by blhack on Thursday April 21, 2011 @12:29PM (#2471230)
I don't, unfortunately, because I didn't write it :(
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by tedjdziuba on Thursday April 21, 2011 @09:59AM (#2470619)
Reddit being down is not news.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by jedberg on Thursday April 21, 2011 @11:11AM (#2470904)
That hurts. But you're right, we've had a lot of issues.

I think the reason this is news is because it is a massive Amazon failure.

Re:Amazon Web Services are down by Peroni on Thursday April 21, 2011 @11:40AM (#2471019)
Reddit gets a lot of grief for stability issues but the fact is it is an immensely popular site that a huge number of people have a close affiliation to. A massive percentage of these people spend a significant portion of their day browsing Reddit, interacting with other redditors, etc. and for the site to be down for as long as it has is news, regardless of similar issues occuring in the past.

The main reason this is news is because this is an Amazon issue but also because tens of thousands of people who frequent the site regularly are now aimlessly browsing the internet in the hopes of finding alternative lulz and in my case some of us are even getting work done. shudder

Re:Amazon Web Services are down by mattdeboard on Thursday April 21, 2011 @11:46AM (#2471043)
I can't imagine how frustrating the jobs of the Reddit admins must be.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by jasonlotito on Thursday April 21, 2011 @12:16PM (#2471185)
Is admin supposed to be plural? I mean, do they really have multiple system admins now? I ask, only because I know people have been coming and going recently.

Frankly, for the size of the site, they do really, really well for the limited resources they have.

Re:Amazon Web Services are down by mattdeboard on Thursday April 21, 2011 @02:46PM (#2471780)
I meant admins in the more general purpose sense of administrators, people who are paid to maintain the system. But yeah I agree, quality:resources ratio is really really high.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by jedberg on Thursday April 21, 2011 @04:29PM (#2472239)
It's usually very rewarding. The awesome community is what keeps me doing it.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by freakball on Thursday April 21, 2011 @08:19PM (#2472878)
Awesome, I just figured out that you kept the votes tallied during the 'downtime'. What's interesting is how clearly good and bad submissions were dichotomized when nobody had anything else to vote on.
Re:Amazon Web Services are down by scorpion032 on Thursday April 21, 2011 @02:53PM (#2471835)
You made Google App Engine managers cry once: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/06/dziuba_google_app_en...

Anything coming up for amazon? If not for anything else, for pure entertainment value!

Re:Amazon Web Services are down by davidreiss666 on Thursday April 21, 2011 @10:20AM (#2470691)
No. Not really. But we kind of miss it anyway.