It's a New Year, I have the cloud, but I still have many of the same old Single Points of Failure.
It's known that a single point of failure (SPOF) is a risk. It's an Achilees heel so to speak. That goes for people, companies, planets, AMI's, AZ's, Regions, Countries, or beers in the fridge. Whatever processes you have to do your general day to day work should be able to deal with known SPOF's and be flexible enough to assimilate and adjust to newly found failure modes. But, and this is important, there is a substantial cost associated with eliminating certain SPOF's. Let's say you decided that you no longer are accepting of having Earth be an SPOF for your awesome blog. Well, in that case, you need a space program, and an interplanetary network that puts this desire out of reach unless you are NASA, Elon Musk, or Richard Branson. Admittedly, that is an extreme example but my point is that your tolerance for risk and downtime must be considered carefully for any technology for which you have implicit or assumed service level agreements with your users. Let's think about Netflix for a moment.
Netflix's service was severely impacted this last Christmas Eve by an outage affecting AWS ELB's in their US East region. Based on my arms length information about Netflix operations through what I've read that is public, in my opinion and far more than most organizations, Netflix understands this cost/benefit of utilizing AWS. They say themselves in a recent post:
"Our strategy so far has been to isolate regions, so that outages in the US or Europe do not impact each other."
"Netflix is designed to handle failure of all or part of a single availability zone in a region as we run across three zones and operate with no loss of functionality on two." Source: http://techblog.netflix.com/2012/12/a-closer-look-at-christmas-eve-outage.html
Netflix clearly understands the risk and still they have chosen to take it despite the known risks. They were completely at the mercy of AWS in this last outage since the failure was regional in nature and their systems do not allow for multi-regional failover within a country for a single user account or group of accounts YET; but they are working on it.
As an AWS client, they do have a reasonable expectation as a customer that the underlying primitives they use from AWS to compose their services will work reliably. In this case, that primitive was Elastic Load Balancers. Like an AMI is a virtual server, an ELB is something of a virtual load balancers. In VPC's ELB's can span AZ's but then, the ELB is an SPOF unless your service is capable of re-initializing an ELB dynamically when it ceases to serve its purpose and can then re-route traffic accordingly. This is non-trivial but can also likely be dealt with if you understand the various intricacies of geo aware anycast backed DNS services.
Someone asked me if the AWS outages of 2012 would make me re-think my plans for cloud computing in 2013. This does not change my cloud plans for 2013 in any way. But, to be clear, even though I really like AWS, AWS is not the cloud and the cloud is not AWS. AWS is a big and deeply important part of the cloud ecosystem. I'm quite thankful for all they've done to further the understanding of cloud around the world. They are likely to stay on top, from my point of view, for a long while. I and my teams deployed large amounts of AWS in 2012 supporting the services of numerous clients.
I don't think these outages will cause any meaningful pause in most cloud plans for 2013 for anyone who takes the time to understand these sorts of situations and doesn't just fall prey to FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) and really is serious about moving to a cloud computing model will keep marching forward. It's not perfect but the benefits to business and technical agility far outweigh the risks and knowledge ramp up investment that is necessary to make full use of cloud computing.
Things break and outages happen. There are very few systems where this is not true and those systems have been designed specially to deal with an extreme need for continuous availability. Especially complex systems and systems deployed at a large scale like AWS can break in interesting ways. It's not so much that things break that is so bad. It is what is done next that matters to keep the same things from breaking again and again. AWS does a pretty good job on this front in my opinion. It performs, communicates, and adjusts far better than most hosting providers I have historical experience working with over the last 15 years or so. They have raise the bar substantially.
Regarding AWS's IaaS services. It is AWS's job to provide a reasonable SLA and maintain it. It is up to users of the services to provide their users with services that have a reasonable SLA and maintain. Decoupling the service from the server is at the heart of the accelerating innovation in hosting of internet connected services that began quite some time ago and now marches under the banner of cloud computing. Now, if you use their PaaS services, it's a bit of a different situation but that's the subject of a whole different discussion I suspect.
Supporting Information Blast from ProductionScale's blog past is contained within the following older posts of mine (in no particular order):
On Clouds and SPOF's, 4/2011
Cloud Computing Impacts Technical Agility, 8/2010
The Traits of a Modern IT Organization, 8/2008
Thoughts on the Business Case for Cloud Computing, 4/2009
Get Your Head in the Clouds, 4/2008
Why Should Businesses Bother with Cloud Computing, 3/2009