@JaredBusch said:

@scottalanmiller said:

@thecreativeone91 said:

How come they don't fail over the VMs to another server, then update the original server move them back and so on as to make it an update with no down time?

Cloud is not high availability. That's a very common misconception. Cloud is beneath the HA layer. Anyone who had HA stayed up and running, of course, but cloud itself is not HA.

They easily could have chosen to do so, but the workload would not offset the cost I am sure.

Not really, because you can only do so much HA at that layer. Not every workload can be made HA in that way. But more importantly, HA is always an option and most importantly, HA is something you do, not something that you buy. But anyone who had an outage, like us, chose to not pay for HA because it is cheaper to have blips than to have the cost of HA.

It's really the end users who opted out of HA.

Azure has its own object storage mechanism (similar to Swift in OpenStack or S3 in Amazon AWS) so to allow you to learn or test behavior they have an emulator so that you can mimic that storage locally.

@alexntg said:

@scottalanmiller said:

@alexntg said:

@scottalanmiller said:

Can't just revert back a DC.

In that case, it'd be a simple matter of tossing the old DC and spinning up a new one. More of an annoyance than anything else.

Yes. Mostly stateless. Would be scary if you put all DCs on azure though. Or any live/live system like this where an environmental change might lock out the entire environment.

I have my entire environment on AWS, spread across two geographic regions with a site-to-site VPN. Upping it a level would be putting one part on AWS and the other on Azure, with a site-to-site VPN between the two.

Yes. Having one node in Rackspace would have protected against this.

@Hubtech Ah ok. I knew SaaS but had just never seen it in that context. The original makes sense. Just not terms I had seen before.