Amazon Didn’t Really Crash On Tuesday, But It Came Awfully Close

Written by Evan Schuman
July 1st, 2010

On Tuesday (June 29), news reports galore said had crashed for about five hours during the afternoon. Technically, it wasn’t true, which is a great excuse to explore the difference between a site being down and a site being very very slow: Not much.

Amazon itself would only say in a statement that the site was “experiencing an issue.” (That’s one of the great PR phrases, in that you can dissect it as carefully as you want and it still communicates absolutely no information.) But Amazon also promised to deliver updates “until service has been restored,” which certainly suggests that service—at that moment—was less than ideal. And, according to site traffic monitoring firm Pingdom, less than ideal accurately described Amazon Tuesday afternoon. At times, the site was taking 10 seconds to deliver a page, which is an eternity for Amazon.

Pingdom pulled Amazon’s traffic reports for Tuesday, looked at its Amazon results and confirmed that the site had indeed not crashed. “They ran into performance issues that slowed down the site quite significantly, but I also verified that the site was reachable, albeit very slow,” said Pingdom Web Analyst Peter Alguacil. “OK, strictly speaking, there were a handful of requests that were met with HTTP errors—both 500 internal server and 503 service unavailable errors—but nothing significant. They happened around the worst peak and are definitely a sign that their servers were temporarily overloaded for some reason.”

Hosting firms are notorious for playing games with service-level agreement (SLA) wording, where they promise 99.999 percent uptime, but exclude any site slowdown short of an absolute crash for all site visitors. Should SLAs specify performance will not drop below a predetermined threshold (two seconds for a page load seems typical)?

Some of that, the hosters will argue, is under the control of the retailer. If the chain decides to fill every page with auto-play full-screen video and to then wildly market a sale without paying for additional bandwidth, it’s hard to blame the server farm for the slowdown.

Either way, Amazon has for years been the most stable of any major E-tailer. When a site slowdown for a few hours makes The Wall Street Journal, that probably is a reverse compliment for your site performance.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.