Ass covering-wise, you are probably better off going down with everyone else on us-east-1. The not so fun alternative: being targeted during an RCA explaining why you chose some random zone no one ever heard of.
Places nobody's ever heard of like "Ohio" or "Oregon"?
Yeah, I'm not worried about being targeted in an RCA and pointedly asked why I chose a region with way better uptime than `us-tirefire-1`.
What _is_ worth considering is whether your more carefully considered region will perform better during an actual outage where some critical AWS resource goes down in Virginia, taking my region with it anyway.
IIRC, some AWS services are solely deployed on and/or entirely dependent on us-east-1. I don't recall which ones, but I very distinctly remember this coming up once.
I find it funny that we see complaints about why software quality has got worse alongside people advocating to choose objectively risky AWS regions for career risk and blame minimisation reasons.
They are for the same reason. How do customers react to either? If us-east-1 fails, nobody complains. If Microsoft uses a browser to render components on Windows and eats all of your RAM, nobody complains.
This to me was the real lesson of the outage. A us-east-1 outage is treated like bad weather. A regional outage can be blamed on the dev. us-east-1 is too big to get blamed, which is why it should be the region of choice for an employee.
how about following the well-architected framework and building something with a suitable level of 9s where you can justify your decisions during a blameless postmortem (please stamp your buzzword bingo card for a prize.)
Cackling while reading this visiting my family in Northern Virginia for the holidays. Despite it being a prominent place in the history of the web, it's still the least reliable AWS region (for now).
us-east-1 is often a lynchpin for services worldwide. Something hinky happening to dns or dynamodb in us-east-1 will probably wreck your day regardless of where you set up shop.
I don't know if this is still true, or related, but that area used to be (Circa 10-30 years ago) very highly prone to power outages. The reason was lots of old trees near the lines that would inevitably fall; blackouts in local areas were common due to this.
Yes, it's the least reliable. Thanks for summarizing the data here to illustrate the issue.
It's often seen as the "standard" or "default" region to use when spinning up new US-based AWS services, is the oldest AWS center, has the most interconnected systems, and likely has the highest average load.
It makes sense that us-east-1 has reliability problems, but I wish Amazon was a little more upfront about some of the risks when choosing that zone.
Yeah, I'm not worried about being targeted in an RCA and pointedly asked why I chose a region with way better uptime than `us-tirefire-1`.
What _is_ worth considering is whether your more carefully considered region will perform better during an actual outage where some critical AWS resource goes down in Virginia, taking my region with it anyway.
However: Don’t underestimate community support (in the areas you’re likely to want it) when comparing development stacks.
At this point my garage is tied for reliability with us-east-1 largely because it got flooded 8 month ago.
It's often seen as the "standard" or "default" region to use when spinning up new US-based AWS services, is the oldest AWS center, has the most interconnected systems, and likely has the highest average load.
It makes sense that us-east-1 has reliability problems, but I wish Amazon was a little more upfront about some of the risks when choosing that zone.
Big fail.
I have said for years, never ascribe to terrorism what can be attributed to some backhoe operator in Ashburn, Virginia.
We got a lotta backhoes in northern Virginia.