Making S3 More Resilient Using Lambda Edge | Hacker News Reader

Making S3 More Resilient Using Lambda Edge

contentful.com

64 pointsthelonelygod23 comments

Before they'd be affected by Route 53 outages, Cloudfront outages, and S3 outages. Now they can add Lambda outages to that list too.

It's also unclear how this actually solves the problem. Now if S3 in _either_ region is unavailable they'll start to fail 50% of uncached requests. I'm guessing they're using Route 53 health checks with some cloudwatch alarm to cut over to one region when they think the other is unhealthy. Presumably this is covered in the unavailable part 2.

I'm mildly skeptical that this is worth the increased risks plus the increased cost from running Lambda@Edge on cache misses.

I think it's still a reduction in risk overall. In the old model, they were vulnerable to S3 failing in one region, a thing that's happened many times. Now they've mitigated the S3-failure-in-one-region issue, at least mostly (though as you point out, how they do so is unknown), and in exchange they've picked up a dependency on Lambda@Edge. But Lambda@Edge, like CloudFront, is a global service distributed across many regions, and to my knowledge AWS has never had a global Lambda@Edge outage.

It's not impossible, of course. Some kind of control plane error could probably knock the whole global service offline. But I'd rather bet on a multi-region service than have all my eggs in one regional basket.

The most famous s3 outage has been operator error from a well-meaning privileged user. The fact that it hasn’t happened for Lambda is just betting on luck. Shit happens, we can’t go designing ever more complicated solutions. May be our services should have some graceful degradation when shit happens instead of trying to create a big-bang and spawn an alternate universe.

I mean, I agree in spirit, but everyone has a different sense of cost/complexity vs. return.

I don't advocate for ever-more-complicated solutions as a rule. e.g. I think multi-cloud setups are probably way more trouble than they're worth for most companies.

I certainly agree that graceful degradation where possible and not too expensive is ideal. For example, if S3 is having problems in one region, being able to fall back (gracefully degrade) into read-only mode might be a nice thing to have.

(In this particular case having a secondary region also probably helps with disaster recovery, which is pretty much mandatory in B2B, for better or worse.)

I completely agree. If building a read-only fallback would require a lot of engineering and added a lot of complexity I would also say it is overkill, but as this solution doesn’t (happy to argue about that). It was an acceptable tradeoff for us as we already replica the underlying s3 buckets for disaster recovery as you already pointed out.

We also run our underlying Content Delivery APIs in two AWS regions so this was a logical extension.

If the added complexity is worth for your use-case can only be decided by you and I hope the article provided some guidance around that vs. just being a copy & paste gist.

Source: I work at Contentful.

> The fact that it hasn’t happened for Lambda is just betting on luck.

Cellular Architecture was largely a reaction to the S3 outage [0]. I agree that one is still bound to fail due to unknown unknowns or unpatchable known unknowns, but reducing the blast radius [1] to not be globally unavailable [2] is a step in the right direction.

[0] https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/swQbA4zub20

[1] https://blog.acolyer.org/2016/09/12/on-designing-and-deployi...

[2] https://blog.acolyer.org/2015/05/07/large-scale-cluster-mana...

Clever marketing term btw: what’s old is new.

‘Cellular architecture’ is how anyone not going down during their prior outages was doing it for over a decade, just not cleverly branded.

Good links, showing base ideas getting published half a decade ago. I’ve seen use for at least 15 - 20 years, pre-dating ec2 and AWS.

> Now they can add Lambda outages to that list too.

Specifically Lambda@Edge though, which changes the math a little.

That said, currently the better solution is CloudFront Origin Groups.

If the "Cross-region replication" line in the picture is talking about the native S3 cross-region replication (as I assume it is), beware the replication latency in this setup. AWS recently released "replication with an SLA" for S3 [0], but at "99.99% of the objects will be replicated within 15 minutes", it's not a good enough SLA to rely on in setups like this.

Presumably Part 2 of this post will address this limitation, or maybe their product isn't affected by it. (I've never looked into Contentful, though maybe I will now -- blog post purpose achieved?)

I'm also not sure if "active-active" is the best name for this setup, since objects can't be written to the 2nd bucket (replication only goes one direction). Generally I associate "active-active" with "writes can happen anywhere", though maybe I'm wrong?

[0] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/s3-replication-update-repli...

Confused - why not use CloudFront Origin Groups? https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/Develope...

Full disclosure, I've never used, but pretty sure this feature was created for the scenario you are trying to solve.

That's a relatively new feature (from November 2018... wow, has it been a year already?). My guess is that they implemented this stuff before that existed or maybe near to its release.

I have not used origin failover either, though I'm pretty sure you're right that this is its exact use-case.

You are correct, this has been implemented before Origin Groups have been released and they might be a viable alternative, but we haven’t tested them yet.

Source: I work at Contentful.

My concern is you (contentful) are leading folks down a bad path. Adding complexity, code, cost and a larger surface area of services that need to be up.

Although it may make sense to this company in _majority_ of companies this would be over-engineering. S3 availability is some of the best in the business. If S3 is down, a good chunk of the internet is down with it.

I disagree.

A single region can go down (and has in the past), no matter how reliable S3 as a whole is. If your business wants to avoid downtime, this is a simple solution to further reduce risks that cause downtime.

Just because other sites might go down, doesn't mean you have to accept it for your own.

Google Cloud Storage has multi-region storage classes. Does S3 not have an equivalent of this?

They have cross-region replication.

I think it's worthwhile to look more into GCP's multi-region bucket implementation and how nice it is. It pretty much removes the need to explicitly set up cross-region replication of objects and offers a single endpoint from which to serve objects in the nearest/most available region.

Sorry I can't condone the use of AWS lambda@edge. No central logs aggregation in an event of an issue or alerting.

Those are also our biggest pain points together with slow deployments (cloudfront distributions can take 10-20 minutes to update, which is required to rollout a new version) and no support for lambda aliases. We forwarded that to our contacts at AWS, please also do that :-)

Disclaimer: I work at Contentful.

It's worth pointing out you can just point Cloudflare Load Balancing at two S3 buckets and call it a day.

If you are already using Cloudflare that is correct, if you don’t that is an alternative.

Adding another vendor into your stack can often come with none engineering complexity (e.g. data protection forms, contractual requirements from customers another vendor you need to work with, etc.) so this is an alternative to stay in AWS when you already use it.

Disclaimer: I work at Contentful.

The architecture described here is pretty simple. The article states the fix was 20 lines of code. If this is the hardest problem you have to solve at work, I envy you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com