People who don't work on cloud services are usually very sloppy with their wording which I think is leading to some disconnect here. A "zone" is not really the unit of availability for most things people consider the "cloud" for hyperscalers. A zone is like 1-3 DCs and you are very vulnerable to stuff like localized power events. For that reason most services are not offered at the zonal level and if they are you get big disclaimers saying so and lower 9s of SLA.
Most things are at a regional level which is multiple zones. Your AWS us-east-1 is one such region. A lot of datacenters spread across a decently large physical area have to have an issue for a whole region to start having failures.
For GCP it seems like one power event in a DC led to a thundering herd on the rest of the region which was the actual issue here. (which is a pretty significant problem and isn't supposed to happen)
You are generally right, except that you don't seem to know the history of major AWS outages. Failures in AWS in us-east-1, which is the first AWS cloud region, often cause cascading worldwide failures in the whole of AWS - especially failures related to DNS and to DynamoDB, if I remember correctly. That is, AWS workloada running in, say, eu-west-1 (and in fact in the whole of AWS) often start failing or at least having greatly degraded performance/availability because of a failure in AWS infra in their core region.
If AWS themselves can't handle cross region isolation and availability well, my expectations for most companies running on top of AWS are quite modest.
It's because AWS runs their control plane out of us-east-1, particularly lambda. There are also some very popular services that can only be run out of us-east-1. It's not really a technological constraint, it's a design decision.
Wait so then how are they signing big customers still who would definitely lose a lot if us-east-1 went down?
(who would be motivated to check if anything is restricted to only us-east-1)
They had a comparable problem in europe-west9 in 2023. Apparently they actually run into trouble if they lose a whole zone through a physical event. It's either thundering herd or simply insufficient capacity in the other two zones to take over all the load from the third zone.
This is why Microsoft calls it an Availability Zone, each zone is made up of one or more data centers equipped with entirely independent power, cooling, and networking infrastructure. One zone should not knock out other zones. Zones are also often nearby each other just enough that they have very efficient fiber optic connections between them.
That said, that's how Microsoft handles it, I'm not sure how GCP compares.
It is an interesting conundrum though, what if all your nearby availability zones come down at once due to power loss? I wonder which major cloud provider has the best setup for these sort of events.
>It is an interesting conundrum though, what if all your nearby availability zones come down at once due to power loss? I wonder which major cloud provider has the best setup for these sort of events
im only familiar with microsoft in this sense, but they have "geo-zone-redundant storage" which copies data across 3+ availability zones in the primary region, and also a secondary geographic region (i think at least 100 miles away if i remember, but maybe further). any incident would have to be massive to affect multiple geo-zones
Thundering heards during zonal outage is fairly common across the providers. You are substantially better off being multi-regional than multi-zonal.