Microsoft Outlook servers down, reports say
-
Era of clown computing.
Looks like I need to change my "cloud to butt" extension to "cloud to clown."
-
I see a lot of comments in here against the cloud and saying that on-prem is better. My question is, why would on-prem uptime would be any better? Or is it more about a loss of control in moving to the cloud?
On-prem allows you 100% control on the downtime. You build internal trust by deciding when to upgrade, availability of hot swap, rollback, etc.
Cloud is just trust and it's out of your control if they break that trust.
-
They should try migrating to the cloud.
You guys I'm serious 99.999)99)999999998% uptime!
Please sign this new TOS/EULA.
-
The problem with cloud services is that you put all your eggs in one basket. Even if outages are less frequent, impacting more people at a time isn't good. If most people use a handful of centralized services, those services become a larger target for hacking and DOS attacks.
That's why I like on-prem, generally speaking. It localizes the risk and prevents a cascading effect.
Theoretically the major cloud providers like MS have redundant geographically dispersed servers that mean there should only be an outage if the individual user can't reach the internet.
In practise however those promises are hollow for a number of reasons, cost usually. Legal issues like GDPR also impinge (EU data being allowed to be in the US has been blocked by the courts the other day for example). In addition there's a long list of other configuration reasons which almost always come back to cost indirectly.
Theoretically an ideally configured cloud solution is far superior to on-prem.
In the real world, not so much: corners cut, pennies saved by non technical managers not understanding the ramifications of their choices & etc
On prem is certainly better in the real world if you're big enough to afford proper redundancy and to hire and keep good techs.
Many many firms can't tick those boxes though and so you get to imperfect world optimisation where what is good for coy. A is bad for coy. B
-
365’s OWA, not Outlook
You don't need to split that hair. No one's gonna tell the two nearly-identically-named products later. While they intentionally named them nearly the same thing so consumers would get confused, I bet they didn't mean like this. But that's where we are.
Outlook is a client, OWA is a web based version of that client. Microsoft is bad at names but I don't see a problem with these tbh
-
Era of clown computing.
Got that from Jason Scott
-
Theoretically the major cloud providers like MS have redundant geographically dispersed servers that mean there should only be an outage if the individual user can't reach the internet.
In practise however those promises are hollow for a number of reasons, cost usually. Legal issues like GDPR also impinge (EU data being allowed to be in the US has been blocked by the courts the other day for example). In addition there's a long list of other configuration reasons which almost always come back to cost indirectly.
Theoretically an ideally configured cloud solution is far superior to on-prem.
In the real world, not so much: corners cut, pennies saved by non technical managers not understanding the ramifications of their choices & etc
On prem is certainly better in the real world if you're big enough to afford proper redundancy and to hire and keep good techs.
Many many firms can't tick those boxes though and so you get to imperfect world optimisation where what is good for coy. A is bad for coy. B
Sums up my thoughts pretty succintly.
I'll add one more: privacy. The more people rely on a given service, the more juicy it is to attack. On prem limits the attractiveness of your data, so you're hiding in a crowd instead of trying to protect a single golden goose.
-
On-prem allows you 100% control on the downtime. You build internal trust by deciding when to upgrade, availability of hot swap, rollback, etc.
Cloud is just trust and it's out of your control if they break that trust.
"Allows you to control the downtime"
*unless your company infrastructure was designed by a 2 year old, you don't have infrastructure admins that believe is still the wild wild west, and your Security team knows how to manage it's av and doesn't block the file servers
-
Got that from Jason Scott
I got it from techrights.org, author is a bit wacky but seems to have his heart in the right place.
-
"Allows you to control the downtime"
*unless your company infrastructure was designed by a 2 year old, you don't have infrastructure admins that believe is still the wild wild west, and your Security team knows how to manage it's av and doesn't block the file servers
All of that can be equally true for cloud infrastructure. There is argument that the cloud company is more incentivizing to use 2 year olds to save labor costs.
In the cloud admin world, no one knows you're a toddler.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's a shame the outage didn't take MSN down with it.
-
Outlook is a client, OWA is a web based version of that client. Microsoft is bad at names but I don't see a problem with these tbh
The new Outlook for Windows, however, is just the OWA inside of a glorified Electron app.
-
System shared this topic on