“Funny how Amazon doesn't use S3 to store any assets for amazon.com”tweet by @gruber
Amazon's S3 suffered a major outage today knocking many websites offline. S3 outage started at approximately 12:00 PM EST and the last time I checked at 11:11PM EST, Smugmug, a popular photo hosting site that extensively uses S3, was still down.
- S3 down for more than 7 hours
- S3 outage, 7 hours and counting
- S3 down again
- Amazon failure downs Web 2.0 sites
- Amazon's S3 experiencing outage
2 comments:
We had to remove everything off the S3 and store it locally on our hosted server. Now we incur additional bandwidth costs at a prime rate rate from our hosting. We made the executive level decision to close our door to S3 and also stop all development with the EC2 for the next year or so until Amazon decides to better educate their staff on maintaining services and also better communicates root causes for these outages to their customers. They maintain a very general This is the second large hit we had this year and we can not risk any further loss of revenue. It is in fact funny how Amazon doesn't host their assets on their own S3 service.
I think that's wrong, but Amazon have a mirror so when s3 goes down they serve stuff from other servers. You can do server balancing in your DNS server, so when the s3 goes down you redirect the S3 alias to your own servers, but that's true, at all your clients will experience some delay until the change in the dns has been propagated.
Post a Comment