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

I like how Amazon has an MAWS movement internally, meaning "Move to AWS". I think most people think that they use AWS mostly, but they dont.

Its an interesting look behind the scenes at Amazon and how antiquated they appear to operate. Makes you wonder if Azure and Google have pretty good chances beating them down the road.

Edit: Interesting, further down one person commented that Amazon doesn't use AWS broadly because it's seen as not secure enough for certain workloads.




Based on my experience, that information and some of the comments about it in the thread are out of date or inaccurate.

'Move to AWS' was a program focused on accelerating AWS adoption that was primarily active something like 5-7 years ago. The program achieved its goals and concluded: virtually all infrastructure was running on AWS. I worked on the program for part of that time, in the last couple of years it was active. Amazon's migration to AWS was was covered in a 2012 presentation at AWS re:Invent: "Drinking Our Own Champagne: Amazon's Migration to AWS" [1].

Some more recent efforts around AWS usage were covered in a 2016 talk: "How Amazon.com Uses AWS Management Tools" [2] (which references the earlier talk and discusses some of the changes since then). There are ongoing projects to improve and optimize usage of AWS, as well as to adopt some of the newer services.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f45Uo5rw6YY [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBvsizhKtFk&t=13m20s


Until they move off of sable, their NoSQL backend for retail, calling them mostly on AWS is laughable especially considering their major prime day outage this last year was caused by sable not being able to dynamically scale up [0].

[0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/19/amazon-internal-documents-wh...


Depends on what you mean by mostly. Almost all code runs on EC2. All object storage is in S3. Almost all service asynchronous interactions are decoupled via SQS. Almost all notifications are shared via SNS.

Yes, most legacy systems use Sable but most new development for the last 2 years uses DynamoDB.

More and more event-driven applications with highly variable throughout are on Lambda. Even on AWS Service teams.

The Sable outage had a particularly laughable interpretation by the armchair quarterbacks from CNBC. The kind of scale involved makes Oracle-based approaches completely infeasible. (the internal Correction of Error document leaked and was wildly mis understood)

And the scaling timelines involved are so compressed that no company in their right mind "dynamically scales up as a result" - it's always projected scheduled scaling. There were other cascading effects.

I know it's fun to dunk on Amazon but their commitment to operational excellence is unparalleled as public AWS post mortems after major events should reveal.

If you read the entire Correction of Error document on tbe Sable outage you'd agree, of course CNBC would never publish that, one gets more clicks by getting a professor out of touch with the realities of production software engineering to blurb some juicy quotes.


This is very true. I left Amazon in 2014, by that time I had to explain why (at least twice a year) I had some services that could not feasibly be moved to AWS. At least in the org I was a part of, that they were not running on AWS stood out enough that it raised questions.


MS Internal tooling fucking sucks compared to Amazon.

Just atrocious. Though I wasn't in Azure so that might be better.




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

Search: