They weren't moving fast and breaking things -- when I looked at 3rd party measured uptime, AWS was clearly #1 and we were going back and forth with Google for #2. This understates AWS's edge since they had fewer global outages and less flakiness that didn't count as downtime.
-
-
The thing that's analogous to the first half of the thread is, if you ask who has the best engineering (ex GOOG), people will name some >$1B "startups" that have architectures with serious data loss/corruption problems that are low reliability, low perf, & high operational burden
-
The most frequent pick I hear had 2 9s of uptime, an architecture that scaled out to handle 0.5 QPS per VM, 8 figures of annual AWS spend, and rampant data loss & corruption. I find it odd that architectures like that are venerated while simple architectures that work are not.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Indeed, Many Startups has 10x more engineers, 10-100x higher Server Cost, while offering 1/10 of its performance. That is 1K to 10K cost difference. And every time I mention this I would be lashed out or simply ignored. I wish other Web Developer take notes on what is possible.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.