alt Hacker NewsYou go multi-region. Multi-cloud is extremely expensive, both in terms of data and functional equivalence.
Bare metal is pretty much the same story: you can host it at different providers, but scaling that and maintaining coherence between data centers is not an easy feat as it might sound.
And seriously now, no sane provider is willing to cover your losses if they go do down. On the other hand, it's not a secret this is not happening and you can take this into account in your risk management strategy.
After years and years, Amazon now has an offering to shield you from when us-east-1 goes down. Funny, no?
If you’re going to go multi-region and take the latency hit may as well go multi-provider no?
Multi-region within the same provider won’t shield you against unknown shared dependencies on a single point of failure (AWS console auth still relies on credentials being checked in a single region if I remember right).
And yes fully agreed that maintaining consistency between active-active regions (whether cloud or bare-metal) is super hard and not worth it for most deployments. Active-standby with point-in-time-recovery and an acceptable data loss window is much easier - when one region is confirmed down, someone throws a switch and the standby becomes active.
> no sane provider is willing to cover your losses
Agreed, but thats why all those who justify the 10-90x premium of the cloud over bare-metal are full of it - that premium is not actually worth it.
> it's not a secret this is not happening
Maybe for you it’s not a secret? Literally every thread tries to justify cloud reliability and their resulting markups. Well if it’s that reliable they’d put their money where their mouth is.