One of the more ridiculous comments I’ve ever seen on HN. It might be the most ridiculous.
I’m guessing you can build AWS in a weekend and it would only cost a few thousand or less in hardware costs, and you can host it all on your cable connection.
I’m guessing you can build AWS in a weekend and it would only cost a few thousand or less in hardware costs, and you can host it all on your cable connection.
The OP did mention "scale" in his/her comment, the very great majority of projects now being started won't get to AWS's size hence they won't need to use AWS's way of doing things (or Google's, or Facebook's).
Google's way is SRE as mentioned here, and I don't have experience to say more there. However, at least in my bubble of the world, AWS's way of "you build it, you run it" is quite popular (and quite effective IMO) for small companies up to any scale.
If you want a different team to be on-call for your application though, there are baseline standards that you have to comply to, and if you breach those standards down the line they're going to hand the pager back to you until you're up to scratch.
The intent of SysDev is to create and maintain the internal, non-customer facing services. This includes writing code and creating services that maintain the reliability of the service/system. It’s usually related to the infrastructure in some way, whether it’s servers or networking but also expands to understanding how all the different sub systems of the AWS product work together.
The core difference here between sysdevs and SREs is that SREs often take over a product from an SWE team once it’s reliable and maintain / improve it. Sysdevs create an internal product and maintain it through the life of it.
Of course in AWS not all orgs follow the intent and often implement the role differently.
No, but a service on my NUC has better uptime than a service on AWS, and costs less, so why would I want to build AWS?
A power outage can be dealt just like in the old days with a UPS unit.
A lot of things I see with millions of concurrent users aren't actually monoliths: Sure, Facebook needs to handle that. But most cloud apps would better be run where each tenant/business/team operates an Intel NUC in their basement, instead of the developer using the cloud as a way to force rent-seeking behavior.
And if your whole region has a problem, which is more likley to happen than one might think, then you want a multi-region setup e.g. us-west-1 and us-east-2, and then we can start to calculate the numbers of nines, unless your username is ocdtrekkie, he can beat AWS with a single NUC while he is sleeping.
SRE here.
92% of all companies can't handle this either.
sure, but 99% of sysadmins/devops/SRE/whatever will never work on anything that has million concurrent users.
Most startup will never reach million concurrent users. And if they do, investors will happily shuffle as much money as you need to make your site work at that scale.
Hell even million monthly users is a nice milestone that most projects never reach, and that usually translates to couple of thousand concurrent request (peak), that average laptop could handle.