>Facepalm in the form of $100Ms in service credits.
Part of me wonders how much they're actually going to pay out, given that their own status page has only indicated five services with moderate ("Increased API Error Rates") disruptions in service.
Part of me wonders how much they're actually going to pay out, given that their own status page has only indicated five services with moderate ("Increased API Error Rates") disruptions in service.
Every AWS customer has a personal health dashboard that links the issues to their services which is updated much faster, and links issues to your affected resources. Additionally requests for credits are done by the customer service team who have even more information.
Either way—overt lies or engineering incompetence—it’s disappointing!
Wouldn't affected companies be incentivized to make a lawsuit about AMZ lying about status? It would be easy to prove and costly to defend from AWS standpoint.