Hacker News Reader

Comment by huhsamovar | Hacker News Reader

So, how does it not go down if you have to ship to EC2?

Most of our sites run entirely on S3. While we do have a cron server running, we could just as easily ship the updated JSON files from one of our laptops.

In fact, for the 2012 election, our fallback in case EC2 was unresponsive was to decamp to a coffee shop with a laptop and s3cmd.

It is served from S3 (this was not entirely clear).

Dumb question, but isn't it possible for S3 to go down (or is the uptime just so high it doesn't matter)?

Yes and yes. Yes, it is possible for S3 to go down and yes uptime is very high. For their purposes, S3 uptime is much higher than they can reasonably sustain with in house hosting.

There hasn't been an acknowledged S3 outage since April 2009 that we can find. Also, we use two different buckets in different geographic availability zones to allow us to stay up if one AZ goes out. Finally, our biggest projects are cached in CloudFront, which would serve a stale cached item if the backend were unavailable.

Thanks for the clarification, all! I learned some shizzle.

Do you 'invalidate' all files when pushing an update or do you use a low cache expiry value for CloudFront?

In particular, I am thinking of edge cases where a news story has a typo/other important correction and you want to update just that story. What is your strategy? How is it impacted by caching done by CloudFront? Thanks.

Plus if you combine S3 with CloudFront you have a very potent combination for uptime

Reply on news.ycombinator.com