This to me was the real lesson of the outage. A us-east-1 outage is treated like bad weather. A regional outage can be blamed on the dev. us-east-1 is too big to get blamed, which is why it should be the region of choice for an employee.

▲

Esophagus4 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Bizarre way of making decisions.

us-east-2 is objectively a better region to pick if you want US east, yet you feel safer picking use1 because “I’m safer making a worse decision that everyone understands is worse, as long as everyone else does it as well.”

	▲	nemomarx 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's about risk profile. The question isn't "which region goes down the least" but "how often will I be blamed for an outage." If you never get blamed for a US east outage, that's better than us-east-2 if that could get you blamed 0.5% of the time when it goes down and us1 isn't down or etc
	▲	TheNewsIsHere an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I also don’t understand this. US-East-2 staying up isn’t my responsibility. If I need my own failover, I’m going to select a different region anyway. And it’s not like US-East-2 isn’t already huge and growing. It’s effectively becoming another US-East-1.

▲

dontdoxxme 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why aren't you using IBM cloud?

▲

throwawaysleep 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If IBM still had a good reputation, I probably would.

	▲	skissane 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I’ve seen people go with IBM Cloud because their salespeople were willing to discount more heavily than AWS/GCP/Azure were. Tier 2 players can be hungrier for your business than tier 1 are. And here I’m talking about completely mainstream workloads (Linux, K8S, etc) Separately from that, if you are trying to move certain types of non-mainstream IBM workloads to cloud (AIX, IBM i, z/OS) then IBM is tier 1 in that case

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]