Think about this rationally. If Cloudflare doesn't fix it within reasonable time, you can just point to different name servers and have your problem fixed in minutes.

So why be on Cloudflare to start with? Well, if you have a more reliable way then there's no reason. If you have a less reliable way, then you're on average better off with Cloudflare.

▲

erdaltoprak 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Well I can't change my NS since it's on Cloudflare too but besides that my personal opinion was not about this outage in particular but more the default approach of some websites that don't need all this tech (yes I really was out of groceries)

▲

carlosjobim 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Is Cloudflare your domain registrar? In that case, yes I think you should think about being less dependent on them.

As for websites which don't need Cloudflare, in my experience almost every website will be DdoS attacked from time to time.

	▲	darkwater 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Is Cloudflare your domain registrar? In that case, yes I think you should think about being less dependent on them. And why I should overthink my architecture now? If I had to manage redundant systems and keep track of circular dependencies I just could keep managing my infra the old way, no? I'm being sarcastic here, obviously, but really one of the selling point for cloud back in the day it was "you don't have to care about those details". You just need to care about other details, now.
	▲	erdaltoprak 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I am personally really happy with Cloudflare for domains, pages and dns, I don't run critical stuff but some websites are and they should not be lazy about it
	▲	Semaphor 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> in my experience almost every website will be DdoS attacked from time to time. The place I work at has been online since 1996, not even a DoS yet, let alone a DDoS. Though we now use CF to filter all that bot traffic.