Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This is probably the best argument for AWS/GCP/Azure even though it is becoming more and more obvious you don't really save that much money.

If you have a black swan event like this and you listened to your solutions architect you will have a disaster recovery plan or even better a multi region setup. Worst case you have highly paid support engineers at the cloud providers who will do everything they can to get you back online.




This does not seem like a hardware failure scenario where the cloud has anything to offer. More like their intricate software/database systems became out of sync with reality and disentangling the mess is a highly manual process.


In this case no, but I was more referring to the 2016 delta ground stop that was due to their datacenter burning to the ground.


I remember reading about the Delta incident a ways back, here they claim it cost them ~$150 million. https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2016/09/08/delt...

That's not the article I hoped to find however. I seem to remember there was another article where they hired a investigator/consultant to figure out the price to migrate to the cloud and ensure "this never happens again."

My recollection of that was: their scheduling/ops team is also in the same city (Atlanta GA) as this datacenter, and that teams work was brought to a halt by the datacenter outage. The investigator concluded that Delta would need redundant copies of the ops team or the whole effort of moving the software to the cloud would just be at risk to something happening to the human team all in the same city. That would obviously cost to much money, so Delta decided to skip it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: