So AWS has had some big outages, as has Azure. Has GCP had any big outages yet?
Google has ~3% market share compared to Microsoft's ~28% and Amazon's ~40%. Not even in the same league at the moment. Google is more on par with IBM and Rackspace, for now. Google will undoubtedly make strides in the space, but they haven't been tested.
[1] https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/04/27/...
Where does this number come from?
If it is based on the revenue reported, be very careful with Microsoft's numbers. They report a lot of products as "Azure intelligent cloud", including Office suite subscriptions, on-premise server licences, and software (Windows, SQL Server) licensing revenue from other cloud providers in that number.
Pretty soon their claimed growth is going to flatten out, because they couldn't find any more revenue to report as "Azure intelligent cloud", like PC hardware ...
[0] https://www.skyhighnetworks.com/cloud-security-blog/microsof...
https://cloud.google.com/customers/
You know....services consumers actually use.
I refreshed a couple times, and sure, I saw more (on average 1 or 2) that I recognized on each page. But I don't think your response is particularly persuasive. Are you suggesting that the services that I use that run on AWS are in fact, not services I actually use?
Or am I not a consumer? I'm confused.
Edit: Do you hold any Alphabet/Google stock? I've noticed your comment history trends toward dismissing criticism of Google, praising their products, and taking opportunities to speak about the flaws of their top competitors.
So the first page was supposed to be indicative of all of the popular consumer facing services they host? Here, let me help you out: Spotify, eBay, Twitter, Apple iCloud, Verizon, Vimeo, Netflix, etc
>I refreshed a couple times, and sure, I saw more (on average 1 or 2) that I recognized on each page. But I don't think your response is particularly persuasive. Are you suggesting that the services that I use that run on AWS are in fact, not services I actually use?
What popular consumer services were on AWS again?
>Edit: Do you hold any Alphabet/Google stock? I've noticed your comment history trends toward dismissing criticism of Google, praising their products, and taking opportunities to speak about the flaws of their top competitors.
Do you own Microsoft stock? Because quote a few of your posts seem to praise their products and services. Do you work for them?
Single-purpose accounts are not allowed here, especially not when pushing an agenda, and most of all not when pushing corporate propaganda. Of all the things that make HN users angry, that's at the top. And I agree with them.
Most of the time we tell HN users that they're not allowed to accuse each other of astroturfing. When we do find a clear-cut case of abuse that's been getting away with it for this long, I get pretty steamed.
You've also frequently broken the site guidelines by being uncivil, so much so that we've warned you at least half a dozen times. That's more than enough reason to ban you in its own right.
But, it doesn't make the headlines like a 2-hour S3 outage in a single region, which must mean something ...
The last incident I'd personally classify as major lasted 39 minutes and was widely reported: https://status.cloud.google.com/incident/cloud-networking/18...
Disclaimer: I work at GCP but am not speaking for them. I also wish a speedy recovery for our colleagues at Azure: an outage like this can only result from many things going sideways simultaneously, and both the cause and recovery can be complicated in ways that flippant "well why didn't you just N+1 it" commenters here on HN can only guess at.
Besides the one you listed:
* https://status.cloud.google.com/incident/compute/18005
"Google Compute Engine VM instances allocated with duplicate internal IP addresses, stopped instances networking are not coming up when started." - 22 hours
Newly-launched instances, or instances that were stopped and started, received duplicate IP addresses. 4.5 hours in a mitigation was provided, but it was only resolved after 22 hours, and customers may have had to still fix individual instances. As far as I remember, this was global, and there is nothing on the status page indicating it was limited to one region or a subset of regions. So, for 4 hours, if you needed to create a VM with working networking, you couldn't, anywhere on GCP, and no mitigation was available. Do you not consider this to be "global"?
* https://status.cloud.google.com/incident/compute/18009
"Instances using Local SSD might experience VM failures. This affects GCE VMs globally. No data corruption has been observed." - 5 hours
The original claim was:
> So AWS has had some big outages, as has Azure. Has GCP had any big outages yet?
I said:
> GCP has had multiple many-hour (6+) GLOBAL outages in the past year. I think it's at about 3 so far this year.
So, maybe it's only 2 major global outages, or maybe it's 3 5-hour+ global problems, but the only way anyone can claim that Google hasn't had any big outages is if they don't have enough market share for a global outage to affect many websites or end-users.
No other regions were affected, except for global APIs (e.g. create S3 bucket), which one shouldn't rely on on your critical path.
Many new customer features have been delivered to allow mitigation of this kind of failure (e.g. cross-region S3 replication).
AWS had a power failure at one data-center in us-east-1 earlier this year, which had very little impact (basically only customers who didn't have sufficient redundancy in other AZs were affected).