The multi-headed hydra of cloud resilience

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Clients have recently been asking a lot more questions about the comparative resilience of cloud providers. Identity services are a particular point of concern (for instance, the Azure AD outage of October 1st and Google Cloud IAM outage of March 26th) since when identity is down, the customer can't access the cloud provider's control plane (and it may impact service use in general) -- plus there's generally no way for the customer to work around such issues. The good news is, hyperscale cloud providers do a pretty good job of being robust. However, the risk of smaller, more hosting-like providers can be much higher -- and there are notable differences between the hyperscalers, too. Operations folks know: Everything breaks. Physical stuff fails, software is buggy, and people screw up (a lot). A provider can try its best to reduce the number of failures, limit the "blast radius" of a problem, limit the possibility of "cascading failures", and find ways to mitigate the impact on users. But you can't avoid failure entirely. Systems that are resilient recover quickly from failure. If you chop off the head of a hydra, it grows back -- quickly. We can think about five key factors -- heads of the hydra -- that influence the robustness, resilience, and observed (“real world”) availability of cloud services: Physical design: The design of physical things, such as the data center and the hardware used to deliver services. Logical (software) design: The design of non-physical things, especially software -- all aspects of the service architecture that is not related to a physical element. Implementation quality: The robustness of the actual implementation, encompassing implementation skill, care and meticulousness, and the effectiveness of quality-assurance (QA) efforts. Deployment processes: The rollout of service changes is the single largest cause of operational failures in cloud services. The quality of these processes, the automation used in the processes, and the degree to which humans are given latitude to use good judgment (or poor judgment) thus have a material impact on availability. Operational processes: Other operational processes, such as monitoring, incident management -- and, most importantly, problem management -- impact the cloud provider’s ability to react quickly to problems, mitigate issues, and ensure that the root causes of incidents are addressed. Both proactive and reactive maintenance efforts can have an impact on availability. A sixth factor, Transparency, isn't directly related to keeping the hydra alive, but matters to customers as they plan for their own application architectures and risk management -- contributing to customer resilience. Transparency includes making architectural information to customers, as well as delivering outage-related visibility and insight to customers. Customers need real-world info -- like current and historical outage reports and the root-cause-analysis port-mortems that offer insight into what went wrong and why (and what the provider is doing about it). When you think about cloud service resilience (or the resilience of your own systems), think about it in terms of those factors. Don't think about it like you think about on-premises systems, where people often think primarily about hardware failures or a fire in the data center. Rather, you're dealing with systems where software issues are almost always the root cause. Physical robustness still matters, but the other four factors are largely about software.

Source: Gartner Blog Network On:

Read On

This post was originally published on this site

Leave a Reply

CIO Newsletters

Copyright ©  2020  CIO Portal. All rights reserved.