alt Hacker NewsIs Northern Virginia still the least reliable AWS region?
Comments
This story missed a glaring detail. There are simply more data centers in northern VA [0]. More than the rest of the US by a wide margin, or the entire EU+Asia. Things break here because it's where most things are.
[0]: https://www.datacenters.com/providers/amazon-aws/data-center...
There are only two kinds of cloud regions: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses
Ass covering-wise, you are probably better off going down with everyone else on us-east-1. The not so fun alternative: being targeted during an RCA explaining why you chose some random zone no one ever heard of.
At 34 hours of downtime that's two nines of uptime
At this point my garage is tied for reliability with us-east-1 largely because it got flooded 8 month ago.
Cackling while reading this visiting my family in Northern Virginia for the holidays. Despite it being a prominent place in the history of the web, it's still the least reliable AWS region (for now).
I intentionally avoid using us-east-1 for anything, since I’ve seen so many outages.
Answer these questions:
- Is X region and its services covered by a suitable SLA? https://aws.amazon.com/legal/service-level-agreements/
- Does X region have all the explicit services you need? (note things like certs and iam are "global" so often implicitly US-East-1)
- What are your PoP latency requirements?
- Do you have concerns about sovereign data: hosting, ingress, and egress? https://pages.awscloud.com/rs/112-TZM-766/images/AWS_Public_...
Yes, it's the least reliable. Thanks for summarizing the data here to illustrate the issue.
It's often seen as the "standard" or "default" region to use when spinning up new US-based AWS services, is the oldest AWS center, has the most interconnected systems, and likely has the highest average load.
It makes sense that us-east-1 has reliability problems, but I wish Amazon was a little more upfront about some of the risks when choosing that zone.
I stopped deploying to a single region for production years ago, so I don’t really have a horse in this region comparison race. That said, I’ve seen network level issues in every region I use — nothing like the big outage, but issues that may disrupt a service. Designing for how the world is rather than how I wish it was makes a lot of sense to me.
The sorting for the "Duration" column appears to be lexicographical, not numeric.
Of course it is, all of the NSA men in the middle add a lot of overhead that can interfere with regular operations.
I think part of this is that Status Page updates require AWS engineers to post them. In the smaller Tokyo (ap-northeast-1) region, we've had several outages which didn't appear on the status page.
I don't know if this is still true, or related, but that area used to be (Circa 10-30 years ago) very highly prone to power outages. The reason was lots of old trees near the lines that would inevitably fall; blackouts in local areas were common due to this.
Glad to use us-west-2 for reasons.
The test environment is deployed on us-east-1, whereas the production environment deployed on us-west-2 on our side.
Us-east-1 is far far from least reliable. It’s one of the more reliable ones. Smaller regions tend to have more reliability issues affecting the entire AZ.
This analysis is skewed due to the major incident in 2025. What was the data for 2024 and over the last, say, 5 years? So the proclamation of least reliable of us-east-1 is based on 1 year of data, and it’s probably fair to say that at least last 3 years if not 5 are a better predictor of reliability.
us-east-1 also hosts some special things, so it will have more services to lose.
We get constant resource issues in GCP’s us-east4 region
Yes
I searched for it, and did not find, the word "backhoe."
Big fail.
I have said for years, never ascribe to terrorism what can be attributed to some backhoe operator in Ashburn, Virginia.
We got a lotta backhoes in northern Virginia.
I think if you need something more reliable than us-east-1 that you should be hosting on prem in facilities you own and operate.
There aren't that many businesses that truly can't handle the worst case (so far) AWS outage. Payment processing is the strongest example I can come up with that is incompatible with the SLA that a typical cloud provider can offer. Visa going down globally for even a few minutes might be worse than a small town losing its power grid for an entire week.
It's a hell of a lot easier to just go down with everyone else, apologize on Twitter, and enjoy a forced snow day. Don't let it frustrate you. Stay focused on the business and customer experience. It's not ideal to be down, but there are usually much bigger problems to solve. Chasing an extra x% of uptime per year is usually not worth a multicloud/region clusterfuck. These tend to be even less resilient on average.