Who gets blame for Amazon outage?

Reliability of cloud services makes customers complacent; many don't plan for worst-case scenarios

Amazon.com has promised to provide a "detailed post-mortem" on the root causes of the prolonged outage of its cloud services in recent days. Users of the Amazon services, meanwhile, may also have to explain how they got caught up in the outage.

The ensuing conversations may be uncomfortable for both Amazon and its cloud customers -- perhaps even more so for users of the services.

Cloud services overall have been remarkably reliable, which may be fostering a dangerous complacency among customers who are putting too must trust in them. This is another old and familiar story of technology hubris, one that was famously illustrated by another tech marvel, the unsinkable Titanic.

In this case, it is IT managers who will have to explain to their users -- and to their companies' executives -- why they didn't have a lifeboat.

Amazon's partial outage, which began Thursday and seemed largely resolved today, was an exceptional event.

Based on data compiled by AppNeta, the uptime reliability of 40 of the largest providers of cloud-based services, including Amazon, Google, Azure and Salesforce.com, shows how well cloud providers are delivering uninterrupted services. The performance management and network monitoring firm, known as Apparent Networks until this week, captures minute-by-minute uptime and other data from cloud providers used by its customers.

The overall industry yearly average of uptime for all the cloud services providers monitored by AppNeta is 99.948%, which is equal to 273 minutes of unavailability per year.

The worst providers clock in at 99.92%, or 420 minutes of unavailability each year.

The best providers are at 99.9994%, or three minutes of unavailability each year.

The takeaway for cloud users looking at the AppNeta data is that the risk of an outage is generally very low.

But that's not how the world works.

For example, Ken Brill, founder of the Uptime Institute, which researches data center issues, points to Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. For 40 years, there were no problems at the plant. Then an earthquake and tsunami that hit in March disabled the facility with catastrophic consequences.

Brill expects that a post-mortem on the nuclear plant will show at least 10 things that could have been done to help avoid that failure and reduce the magnitude of damage and would have made it easier or faster to recover from.

The Amazon post-mortem will likely show something similar, said Brill.

Despite the redundancies and backups built into the Amazon cloud, "you hit a combination of events for which the backups don't work," he said.

Users see the promise of cloud technology as a way to reduce costs and be greener, but "that [also] means concentrating processing in fewer, bigger places," said Brill. Thus, when something goes wrong, "it has a bigger impact."

Meanwhile, the promise of reliable cloud uptime is putting protection advocates -- the IT people who champion more internal reliability and safeguards -- at a disadvantage, he added. "There will always be an advocate for how it can be done cheaper, [but] if you haven't had a failure for five years -- who is the advocate for reliability?

"My prediction is that in the years ahead, we will see more failures than we have been seeing, because people have forgotten what we had to do to get to where we are," Brill added.

AppNeta runs its company on Amazon's cloud technology and was affected by the outage. However, its problems where short-lived because its service is architected to respond to a data center failure in Amazon's cloud.

Matt Stevens, chief technology officer at AppNeta, said its system was able to fall back to an alternative availability zone in another data center in Amazon's cloud.

"You still need to plan for worst-case scenarios," said Stevens, who noted Amazon advises its customers to plan for a potential data center interruption. "It was actually their guidance that helped us [prevent] this from being more painful."

Amazon has built the system with multiple levels of disaster recovery, including a design for high availability across virtual infrastructures within a zone, such as the ability to fail over between servers, as well as planning to fail over to another data center, as AppNeta did.

AppNeta has redundant mirroring of its data in Amazon's S3 storage service, which allowed the company to pull that data into a second data center. AppNeta's problem was limited to a couple of hours Thursday morning, said Stevens.

He believes that Amazon's outage will cause people to step back and ask some question about their internal architectures, as well as consider whether to adopt a multicloud strategy to help mitigate the risk. "That's certainly got to be top of mind for a lot of CIOs today," Stevens said.

Patrick Thibodeau covers SaaS and enterprise applications, outsourcing, government IT policies, data centers and IT workforce issues for Computerworld. Follow Patrick on Twitter at @DCgov, or subscribe to Patrick's RSS feed . His e-mail address is pthibodeau@computerworld.com.

From CIO: 8 Free Online Courses to Grow Your Tech Skills
Join the discussion
Be the first to comment on this article. Our Commenting Policies