this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2025
438 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
77084 readers
2485 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Her real comment was that there are only 3 major cloud providers they can consider: AWS, GCP, and Azure. They chose AWS and AWS only. So there are a few options for them going forward — 1) keep doing what they’re doing and hope a single cloud provider can improve reliability, 2) modify their architecture to a multi-cloud architecture given the odds of more than one major provider going down simultaneously is much rarer, or 3) build their own datacenters/use colos which have a learning curve yet are still viable alternatives. Those that are serious about software own their own hardware, after all.
Each choice has its strengths and drawbacks. The economics are tough with any choice. Comes down to priorities, ability to differentiate, and value in differentiation :)
What reason do they give for only wanting to use those three cloud providers? There are many others.
Scale, they need worldwide coverage.
https://mastodon.world/@Mer__edith/115445705126997025
The big 3 also offer disgustingly fast interconnection. Google, Amazon and Microsoft lay their own undersea fiber for better performance.
If willing to sacrifice a bit of everything, OVH has North-American and European locations, as well as one in India, one in Singapore and one in Australia. They're building a few more in India, one in Dubai, two in Africa, one in NZ and 3 in South America. Once they add a few more on top of those, that's damn near worldwide coverage too. And OVH is a French company, so the US government has less leverage over it than Amazon.
And yet a single availability zone in AWS going down caused an outage?
Yes, because scale is not the same as redundancy.
Signal would need to pay for multi region redundancy and build a programmatic way of swapping regions when their primary region is down.