by ccakes 4 hours ago
> If an individual site took on the infra challenges themselves, would they achieve better? I don’t think so.
The point is that it doesn’t matter. A single site going down has a very small chance of impacting a large number of users. Cloudflare going down breaks an appreciable portion of the internet.
If Jim’s Big Blog only maintains 95% uptime, most people won’t care. If BofA were at 95%.. actually same. Most of the world aren’t BofA customers.
If Cloudflare is at 99.95% then the world suffers
> If Cloudflare is at 99.95% then the world suffers
if the world suffers, those doing the "suffering" needs to push that complaint/cost back up the chain - to the website operator, which would push the complaint/cost up to cloudflare.
The fact that nobody did - or just verbally complained without action - is evidence that they didn't really suffer.
In the mean time, BofA saved cost in making their site 99.95% uptime themselves (presumably cloudflare does it cheaper than they could individually). So the entire system became more efficient as a result.
They didnt really suffer or they dont have choice?
Maybe worlds can just live without the internet for a few hours.
There are likely emergency services dependent on Cloudflare at this point, so I’m only semi serious.