@emilion

The key problem is choices made by system architects with the help of GAFAM+CF marketing departments:

1. GAFAM hosted and CF “protected” website is now the default mode of deploying websites, whatever size, starting from school - that’s 100% marketing, it’s not driven by any rational need
2. by doing that, GAFAM+CF certainly gain user base and groom it to reproduce these choices in corporate environments
3. this in turn dramatically increases complexity of GAFAM+CF services which now handle not only traffic of relatively small paid user base who actually need them, but also millions of free tier users whose only business goal at GAFAM+CF side is… marketing and user grooming
4. it remains the fact, that 99% of websites hosted CF do not need neither AWS or CF, they use the former as a fancy alternative to simple cloud VM while the latter as… well, fancy extra proxy layer doing nothing

I’ve had a lot of these discussions in the enterprise I’ve worked for. After the initial layer of some architects’ deeply internalised irrational habits (“YOU CAN’T BUILD A WEBSITE WITHOUT AWS AND CF!!!”) was broken, everyone promptly agreed on a consensus that CF really only makes sense for DDoS avoidance, but even in that role it should be only switched on frontends that actually need it and doesn’t need to be enabled 100% of the time, only when an actual attack happens.

#CloudFlare #GAFAM

@rysiek

@emilion I am not surprised. I am saying this is simply unacceptable.

They made the decision to put themselves in a central, critical position for innumerable services, and as you say it is entirely obvious it's impossible to keep being reliable on that level of complexity and scale.

Instead of justifying these failures, we should recognize this and remove them from that central, critical position. Instead of 5 or so huge companies that can't manage their complexity, we need hundreds that can.