Readit NewsThe singular destroys the monolithic many.
The process was pretty tight, almost no revenue-affecting outages from what I can remember because it was such a collaborative effort (even though the board presentation seemed a bit spiky and confrontational at the time, everyone was working together).
Is 75 minutes really considered that long of a time? I don't do my day-job in webdev, so maybe I'm just naive. But being able to diagnose the single service endpoint in 75 minutes seems pretty good to me. When I worked on firmware we frequently spent _weeks_ trying to diagnose what part of the firmware was broken.
What are business hours for a global provider of critical tech services?
From my experience in setting up and running support services, not really. It's actually pretty darn quick.
First, the issue is reported to level 1 support, which is bunch of juniors/drones on call, often offshore (depending on time of the day) who'll run through their scripts and having determined that it's not in there, escalate to level 2.
Level 2 would be more experienced developer/support tech, who's seen a thing or two and dealt with serious issues. It will take time to get them online as they're on call but not online at 3am EST, as they have to get their cup of joe, turn on the laptop etc. Would take them a bit to realize that the fecal matter made contact with the rotating blades and escalate to level 3.
Which involves setting up the bridge, waking up the decisions makers (in my case it was director and VP level), and finally waking up the guy who either a) wrote all this or b) is one of 5 or 6 people on the planet capable of understanding and troubleshooting the tangled mess.
I do realize that AWS support might be structured quite a bit differently, but still... 75 minutes is pretty good.
Edit: That is not to say that AWS doesn't have a problem with turnover. I'm well aware of their policies and tendency to get rid of people in 2/3 years, partially due to compensation structures where there's a significant bump in compensation - and vesting - once you reach that timeframe.
But in this particular case I don't think support should take much of a blame. The overall architecture on the other hand...
Specifically: Do they spend more time actually taking calls now? I guess as long as you're not at the burnout point with utilization it's probably fine, but when I was still supporting call centers I can't count the number of projects I saw trying to push utilization up not realizing how real burnout is at call centers.
I assume that's not news to you, of course. At a certain utilization threshold we'd always start to see AHTs creep up as agents got burned out and consciously or not started trying to stay on good calls.
Guess it also partly depends on if you're in more of a cust serv call center or sales.
I hated working as an actual agent on the phones, but call center ops and strategy at scale has always been fascinating.
I think AI in general is just being misused to optimise local minima in detriment to the overall system.
I dunno.... as I get older, this sounds more and more idyllic
Western governments have been mostly incapable of building housing and infrastructure. We have a severe housing shortage, barely improved public transport since the 80s, a lack of energy production (in Europe), lack of reservoirs, an aging population and increased international competition, etc.
And this all creates a huge pressure for ordinary people, just housing alone has a huge impact now - stunting the formation of families, and effectively taxing productive people to fund those who were lucky enough to buy the assets in the past.