TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Massive S3 outage

42 pointsby ptmover 17 years ago
Massive S3 outage. Seems to affect other AWS services (SDB, SQS) as well.<p>Other AWS services are down too ... EC2 http://developer.amazonwebservices.com/connect/thread.jspa?threadID=19715&#38;tstart=0 SQS http://developer.amazonwebservices.com/connect/thread.jspa?threadID=19713&#38;tstart=0

9 comments

henningover 17 years ago
Interestingly, my desktop applications did not go down this morning. It was right there waiting for me as I sipped my coffee.<p>It also didn't go down all the times the 37Signals web apps I pay for or the hosted FogBugz installation my company uses have gone down.<p>Desktop apps rock! :)
评论 #116568 未加载
eugenejenover 17 years ago
So it is 6 hours complete outage in around 22 months since its opening beta. The lifetime outage is somewhat around 6/(30 * 22 * 24) = 0.00037 = 0.037%! I think this is pretty impressive achievement to build a system with uptime as 99.963%. Especially for some poor engineers woke up at 2am in Seattle and started to figure out what went wrong and get it back on line. I think it is pretty cool.<p>In the case when our PCs/Macs crashed. Even I could rush to a Circuit city/JR store to get a replacement hard drive. I probably will spend the same amount of time just to revive my system, given I have good habit back up the system. If that is not the case, I will need to reinstall operating system and applications. I guess the down time may be 24 to 48 hours.<p>So the downtime for a person without good habit in backup. The uptime will be 99.849%! if it takes 24 hours to get back the system in 22 months.
评论 #116652 未加载
johnrobover 17 years ago
I think the internet needs an S3 clone, offered by another company. Both companies would be better off because of eachother.<p>S3 is still more reliable than a couple of dedicated servers, though :)
评论 #116593 未加载
评论 #116695 未加载
zemajover 17 years ago
Phew, back up. Although that the fact that it was possible to have the entire network go down is quite worrying.<p>S3 actually has an SLA; <a href="http://aws.amazon.com/s3-sla" rel="nofollow">http://aws.amazon.com/s3-sla</a> If I'm reading that right, if S3 is completely down for more than about 40 mins in Feb (which it was - about 90 mins by my count) then we should get a 10% discount for this month. Is that right?
评论 #116471 未加载
bayareaguyover 17 years ago
Kathrin of the The Amazon Web Services Team has posted some more specific details on the failure here. In summary it seems their Authentication service was overloaded.<p><a href="http://developer.amazonwebservices.com/connect/message.jspa?messageID=79982#79982" rel="nofollow">http://developer.amazonwebservices.com/connect/message.jspa?...</a>
xiriumover 17 years ago
Bummer. Would anyone like backup virtual hosting on our physical servers?
gibsonf1over 17 years ago
Our site seems to be running fine (EC2/S3). We actually have all files currently on EC2 and backed up to S3 (We haven't checked to see if the backup is still working yet)
评论 #116587 未加载
goodgoblinover 17 years ago
Fudge - ec2 is working for me, but s3 reads and writes are not. Guess its time to get to work on some kind of failover...
评论 #116461 未加载
评论 #116528 未加载
tlrobinsonover 17 years ago
Today was the day I was going to tackle the S3 component of our application... and I wake up to see this.