It’s not absurd, I’ve seen it happen. Company executes on their DR plan due to AWS outage, AWS is back before DR is complete, DR has to be aborted, service is down longer than if they’d just waited.

Of course there are cases when multi cloud makes sense, but it is in the minority. The absurd claim is that most companies should worry cloud outages and plan for AWS to go offline for ever.

> If your company is in anything finance-adjacent or critical infrastructure

GP said:

> most companies

Most companies aren't finance-adjacent or critical infrastructure

> If your company is in anything finance-adjacent or critical infrastructure then you need to be able to cope with a single region of AWS failing

That still fits in with "almost guarantee". It's not as though it's true for everyone, e.g. people who might trigger DR after 10 minutes of downtime, and have it up and running within 30 more minutes.

But it is true for almost everyone, as most people will trigger it after 30 minutes or more, which, plus the time to execute DR, is often going to be far less than the AWS resolution time.

Best of all would be just multi-everything services from the start, and us-east-1 is just another node, but that's expensive and tricky with state.

I thought we were talking about an AWS outage, not just the outage of a single region? A single region can go out for many reasons, including but not limited to war.

I worked for a fortune 500, twice a year we practiced our "catastrophe outage" plan. The target SLA for recovering from a major cloud provider outage was 48 hours.

> If your company is in anything finance-adjacent or critical infrastructure then you need to be able to cope with a single region of AWS failing.

This describes, what, under 1% of companies out there?

For most companies the cost of being multi-region is much more than just accepting with the occasional outage.