Seems like it would be conflict of interest to increase robustness of single AZ (so it never goes down or has its own redundancy) vs. increased revenues from multi AZ deployment.
What's the point of cloud if we have to manage robustness of their own infrastructure. I can understand if that's due to natural disasters and earthquakes, but the idea should be that a single AZ should never go down barring extraordinary circumstances. AWS should be auto-balancing, handling downtimes of a single AZ without the customer ever noticing it.
It might not be a good analogy, but if a single Cloudflare edge datacenter goes down, it will automatically route traffic through others. Transparent and painless to the customer. I understand AWS is huge, and different services have different redundancy mechanisms, but just conceptually it feels like they're in a conflict of interest to increase robustness of their data centers - "We told you to have multi-AZ deployment, not our fault".
Another way to put this is make sure as an AWS customer, to 3x multiply all costs + management of multi-AZ deployment into your total costs.
> What's the point of cloud if we have to manage robustness of their own infrastructure.
Worth deliberating on. I’m curious as to what the lifetime cost of ownership for an on-prem data center is relative to lifetime cost of operating in the cloud.
They would simply charge for the privilege. An EC2 'always on' or whatever option that enabled your instance to live migrate between availability zones would be a nice and expensive option.
What's the point of cloud if we have to manage robustness of their own infrastructure. I can understand if that's due to natural disasters and earthquakes, but the idea should be that a single AZ should never go down barring extraordinary circumstances. AWS should be auto-balancing, handling downtimes of a single AZ without the customer ever noticing it.
It might not be a good analogy, but if a single Cloudflare edge datacenter goes down, it will automatically route traffic through others. Transparent and painless to the customer. I understand AWS is huge, and different services have different redundancy mechanisms, but just conceptually it feels like they're in a conflict of interest to increase robustness of their data centers - "We told you to have multi-AZ deployment, not our fault".
Another way to put this is make sure as an AWS customer, to 3x multiply all costs + management of multi-AZ deployment into your total costs.