I've always advised other startups using AWS to begin on us-west-2 as it has a couple key pros:
1. Lower latency to SF/Bay Area
2. Cheaper then US-West-1 (California).
3. Updated and cared for. West-2 is sometimes behind East-1 on some features - things like govcloud, some instance types etc rolled out on East-1 first - However, unlike US-West-1, it eventually gets updated. [0]
4. Until now, it hasn't had a single incident. I knew this would never last, but given that it's smaller and simpler (less legacy hardware), I still think that Oregon will have better uptime then VA.
This advice doesn't changes at all, even with this most recent blip. I'm just sad that I can't say "US-West-2. Closer and never had an incident"
[0] Given how US-West-1 (CA) often falls behind on features, it will not surprise me if AWS announces that they're going to deprecate that region.
7 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 25.2 ms ] thread7:23 AM PDT We are investigating networking connectivity issues for some instances in the US-WEST-2 Region.
They should really change the color of the checkmark if they're having issues.
1. Lower latency to SF/Bay Area
2. Cheaper then US-West-1 (California).
3. Updated and cared for. West-2 is sometimes behind East-1 on some features - things like govcloud, some instance types etc rolled out on East-1 first - However, unlike US-West-1, it eventually gets updated. [0]
4. Until now, it hasn't had a single incident. I knew this would never last, but given that it's smaller and simpler (less legacy hardware), I still think that Oregon will have better uptime then VA.
This advice doesn't changes at all, even with this most recent blip. I'm just sad that I can't say "US-West-2. Closer and never had an incident"
[0] Given how US-West-1 (CA) often falls behind on features, it will not surprise me if AWS announces that they're going to deprecate that region.