Google Cloud's watery Parisian outage enters third week, with no end in sight Two weeks after the unwelcome "water intrusion" inside a Parisian Google Cloud datacenter, the stricken facility remains offline – with no indication when it might resume operations. Google Cloud's europe-west9 region took a shower on April 25. As datacenters and water don't mix, outages resulted. It later emerged that the …
Yeah, as I've been saying, no its not.
"Google Cloud products in europe-west9-c may not be available to customers."
So why aren't they moved to a different region? Is it because you have to pay more for that?
No matter how much our MSP pressures us to go full cloud I don't think its a good idea. But no one listens to me.
Strip away all the hype, and the value of the cloud is betting that renting your equipment and the ability to scale up and down in five minutes is cheaper than buying it all outright plus provisioning and running costs. For greenfield projects, or a major upgrade, it's worth weighing the different paths.
But for some reason management always wants to replace the datacenter wholesale, despite all the sunk costs that have already gone into it.
Another commentard posted a couple of years ago:
-------
cloud
/klaʊd/
noun: cloud; plural noun: clouds
1. a visible grey or white mass of condensed watery vapour floating in the atmosphere, typically high above the general level of the ground.
The day IT lost sight of what the word really meant was the day common sense started to slide down the hill and beancounters took over.
Being beancounters, they ignore the fact that the ownership* of their company's data is inversely proportional to the amount of cloud services they buy in order to save money.
* the actual cost of getting your data back home once you realise that cloud services were more expensive than what you originaly thought.
Because, no one ever made a case for estimating just how much you'd had to put down to get out of the cloud.
---
This idea still stands.
So ...
Two weeks after the incident, the data is nowhere to be seen and Google does not seem to give a rat's toss.
1. What are Google Cloud's customers going to say to whoever they provide services to?
2. How will they spin to their shareholders what a great idea it was to rely on unstable water vapour to hold their priceless data?
.
But you always have SLAs. Companies and MSPs that support you are strict with their SLA. But we have an urgent issue "Doesn't matter, we stick to our SLAs, your one company of many we support". And there's the problem. Outsource the kit, outsource the support and you get that bollocks. At least with me still on site I can say "We have SLAs but I can see and know its urgent with that room full of people waiting. I'll fix it now but raise a ticket after".
So why aren't they moved to a different region?
Because that's the job of the customer, just like it's their job, when using on-prem, to have a secondary site as backup.
If your workload is critical, you deploy it to multiple availability zones, or even multiple regions, so you don't have to worry if 1 AZ is down.
If you think that because it's "in the cloud", your provider will automagically take care of everything, then you haven't understood the model.
No it hasn't. You're just trying to sound official or technical or something. What has occurred is a fire, not a "fire incident". Just like it's not a "flood event" it's a flood. And when did we move from having a storm to having a "severe weather event"? Anyway, gotta go, I had a curry last night and can feel a catastrophic evacuation event coming on.
An announcement that was not followed by "so we have redeployed all of the workloads to europe-west9-q (a bunch of containers in a car-park} so that service is maintained". Odd that. Almost as if they don't have to give a s**t.
One for the customer, who keeps us well paid,
One for maintenance, whose plans are well laid,
One for the moon, the stars, and the sea,
Whose shifting waters none can foresee.
Seriously. Outages like this happen. Google has given users the tools for reliability, but you need an education to use them properly. If you are not in three geographically, electrically, and chronologically (as to maintenance schedules) isolated data centers, with each capable of immediately taking on 100% of your workload, you on NOT HA. And that is on you, not them.
(And, assuming your workload is big enough, you can get by with 50% or less cost increase instead of 200%.)
You're wasting your time with the people on here. It's usually a binary argument of cloud == expensive and bad. The discussion is far more nuanced and broader than that, but it's all commentards seem to care about these days, so this website keeps pumping out the content to wind people up, maintain engagement and sell ads.
The inevitable deluge of down votes will serve to illustrate my point!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
