[HN Gopher] Show HN: I made a down detector for down detector
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Show HN: I made a down detector for down detector
        
       After down detector went down with the rest of the internet during
       the Cloudflare outage today I decided to build a robust,
       independent tool which checks if down detector is down. Enjoy!!
        
       Author : gusowen
       Score  : 520 points
       Date   : 2025-11-19 00:05 UTC (22 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (downdetectorsdowndetector.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (downdetectorsdowndetector.com)
        
       | ulf-77723 wrote:
       | Nice! Who doesn't like a good recursion? Fingers crossed that the
       | down detector for down detector won't be down, when down detector
       | might be down
        
         | kijin wrote:
         | Use the original down detector to monitor the down detector for
         | down detector for down detector. Complete the circle!
        
       | jesperwe wrote:
       | Yeah we had a good laugh when Downdetector was down during the
       | Cloudflare outage yesterday. So this is appropriate. +1
        
         | cortesoft wrote:
         | I remember when the CDN I was working for had to change our
         | status page provider when our first one became our client.
        
       | cweagans wrote:
       | Ah, now we know that the answer to "who watches the watchers?" is
       | "@gusowen". :D
        
         | johnisgood wrote:
         | But who is going to watch him?!
        
           | PunchyHamster wrote:
           | his cat. at least when he's on toilet
        
       | gblargg wrote:
       | Would it be a good idea to have a second instance of this
       | watching the first one? /s
        
       | ZeroConcerns wrote:
       | Thank you for your service! Now, for an even bigger challenge:
       | since it seems the increased demand for the Cloudflare status
       | page brought down Amazon CloudFront for a bit as well, build a
       | new CDN capable of handling _that_ load as well...
        
         | carstenhag wrote:
         | Do you need a CDN for a static html, no images? I would guess
         | no, even if you.are being bombarded with requests
        
           | ZeroConcerns wrote:
           | I would guess yes, unless you have a server with unlimited
           | file descriptors and flawless connectivity to every other
           | AS...
        
             | amelius wrote:
             | But CDNs are made for static content so your comment means
             | I can't run a dynamic website unless I have unlimited file
             | descriptors and flawless connectivity.
        
               | benregenspan wrote:
               | "Need" is a strong word. But I think the point is that if
               | you expect wildly spikey traffic/don't want the site to
               | go down if it receives a very sudden influx of requests,
               | going static is a very good answer, much cheaper than
               | "serverless" or over-provisioning.
        
       | 4ndrewl wrote:
       | But we need another one to detect whether yours is still up.
       | 
       | It's downdetectorsdown all the way down.
        
         | Nevermark wrote:
         | Given enough of them, some fraction will always be down. It
         | would be helpful if we had a site that could track that ratio.
        
         | thinkingemote wrote:
         | https://downdetectorsdowndetectorsdowndetector.com/
        
           | wltr wrote:
           | It was worth the laugh, thanks!
        
           | sd8f9iu wrote:
           | https://downdetectorsdowndetectorsdowndetectorsdowndetector..
           | ..
        
             | ritzaco wrote:
             | who is going to throw $10 at
             | 
             | https://downdetectorsdowndetectorsdowndetectorsdowndetector
             | s...
        
               | callamdelaney wrote:
               | Could we monitor all of these with downdetector?
        
               | jMyles wrote:
               | I don't know if I'm the only one, but I keep coming back
               | to check. :-)
        
               | rft wrote:
               | Had to check, but that is actually beyond what DNS
               | allows. Labels (the part between dots) are limited to 63
               | characters. We could sneakily drop an s somewhere in
               | there and then it would fit.
               | 
               | https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1035
               | 
               | Also I think I triggered a nice error log in domaintools
               | just now. https://whois.domaintools.com/downdetectorsdown
               | detectorsdown...
        
               | cortesoft wrote:
               | Have to use more efficient notation - downdetectorsx5.com
        
               | chuckadams wrote:
               | fix.downdetectors.com
        
             | johnisgood wrote:
             | It says all systems operational yet Los Angeles, USA is
             | down. :(
        
               | ProtoAES256 wrote:
               | It says down now correctly :D
        
             | joasto wrote:
             | 4xDowndetector lol
        
               | insin wrote:
               | The Internet is back!
        
         | bell-cot wrote:
         | Downdetection can be thought of as a directed graph, or
         | digraph*.
         | 
         | From there, the "who's watching who?" can become mathematically
         | interesting.
         | 
         | * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_Graph
        
         | rozenmd wrote:
         | here's a page that monitors _that_ page:
         | https://onlineornot.com/website-down-checker?requestId=jCfaD...
         | 
         | Looks like it's hosted in London?
        
         | hirako2000 wrote:
         | It's a centralization vs decentralisation vs distributed system
         | question.
         | 
         | Since down detectors serve to detect failures of centralized
         | (and decentralized systems) the idea would be to at least get
         | that right: a distributed system to detect outages.
         | 
         | You basically run detectors that heartbeat each others. Just a
         | few suffice.
         | 
         | Once you start to see clusters of detectors go silent, you can
         | assume things are falling apart, which is fine so long as a few
         | remain.
         | 
         | Self healing also helps to make the web of nodes resilient to
         | inevitable infrastructure failures.
        
         | neoCrimeLabs wrote:
         | It's down detectors all the way down
        
         | meken wrote:
         | We could create a linked list of these and just refer to the
         | N'th one as N-down detector.
        
       | ricq wrote:
       | Is it hosted on Cloudflare?
        
         | mcny wrote:
         | I feel like the classic East Dakota reply would be that cloud
         | flare CDN does not host your data and merely proxies it (bonus
         | points if he uses the words "mere conduit" in his reply and
         | therefore cloud flare can't be held responsible yada yada).
         | 
         | Jokes aside, as far as I can tell,
         | https://downdetectorsdowndetector.com/ is NOT using Cloudflare
         | CDN/Proxy
         | 
         | https://downdetectorsdowndetector.com/ is NOT using Cloudflare
         | SSL
         | 
         | However, selesti reports it uses cloudflare DNS?
         | 
         | https://checkforcloudflare.selesti.com/?q=https://downdetect...
         | 
         | https://downdetectorsdowndetector.com/ is using Cloudflare DNS!
         | 
         | Checked 8 global locations, found DNS entries for Cloudflare in
         | 3
         | 
         | Found in: England, Russia, USA
         | 
         | Not found in: China, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Netherlands
        
           | xp84 wrote:
           | That won't be an issue though - as we all know, DNS is rarely
           | related to cloud failures
        
         | PunchyHamster wrote:
         | of course, adding to the joke
        
       | goopypoop wrote:
       | and i still can't find any feathers
        
       | spyridonas wrote:
       | As a European solo developer, I've switched entirely to European
       | alternatives for all my infrastructure since the beginning of the
       | year.
       | 
       | Cloudflare > Bunny.net
       | 
       | AWS > Hetzner
       | 
       | Business email > Infomaniak
       | 
       | Not a single client site has experienced downtime, and it feels
       | great to finally decouple from U.S. services.
        
         | moffkalast wrote:
         | > Bunny.net
         | 
         | Ah yes, _the_ place for RabbitMQ endpoints.
        
         | buildfocus wrote:
         | I've done something similar, it's worth noting Scaleway in the
         | same space, for people looking for an AWS replacement more like
         | managed services (equivalents to fargate/lambda/sqs/s3/etc)
         | instead of just bare instance hosting.
        
           | moooo99 wrote:
           | +1 for Scaleway. I also use Hetzner for most of my compute.
           | But some stuff just really profits from using managed
           | services. I've used Scaleway's Serverless compute offers and
           | managed DBs an been quite happy with them.
        
             | moffkalast wrote:
             | -1 for Scaleway, they were a really good deal years ago but
             | have become expensive af
        
               | tuetuopay wrote:
               | well they're not comparable to hetzner anymore, both in
               | terms of features and price. only their dedibox brand
               | could compare, as it's the classic hosting approach vs
               | cloud.
               | 
               | for the hobby crowd it's a shame, for a corporation it's
               | still cheaper than aws with the extra bonus of not having
               | any tie to the us.
        
         | graemep wrote:
         | Those are all much smaller. Smaller providers have a much
         | stronger incentive to be reliable, as they will lose customers
         | if they are not. In a corporate settings management will say
         | "this would not have happened if you had gone with AWS". its
         | the current version of "no one ever got fired for buying IBM"
         | (we had MS and others in between).
         | 
         | Hetzner provides a much simpler set of services than AWS. Less
         | complexity to go wrong.
         | 
         | A lot of people want the brand recognition too. Its also become
         | the standard way of doing things and is part of the business
         | culture. I have sometimes been told its unprofessional or looks
         | bad to run things yourself instead of using a managed service.
        
           | amelius wrote:
           | > Less complexity to go wrong.
           | 
           | This sounds like a good thing.
        
             | graemep wrote:
             | It is, in itself.
             | 
             | It does mean that you get fewer services, you have to do
             | more sysadmin internally or use other providers for those
             | which a lot of people are very reluctant to do.
        
               | amelius wrote:
               | I bet most people don't even need the extra features.
        
               | graemep wrote:
               | When forced to use AWS I only use the extra features I am
               | specifically told to or that are already in use in order
               | to make the system less tied to AWS and easier for me to
               | manage (I am not an AWS specialist so its easier for me
               | to just run stuff like I would on any server or VPS). I
               | particularly dislike RDS (of things I have used). I like
               | Lightsail because its reasonably priced and very like
               | just getting a VPS.
               | 
               | S3 is something of an exception, but it does not tie you
               | down (everyone provides block storage now, and you can
               | use S3 even if everything else is somewhere else) for me
               | if storing lots of large files that are not accessed very
               | much (so egress fees are low).
        
               | mhb wrote:
               | Looking forward to the Show HN: I built a web site that
               | uses all of AWS services.
        
               | marcosdumay wrote:
               | That would be an expensive Show HN.
        
           | hoppp wrote:
           | I think cloudflare has billions worth of incentives to be
           | reliable however they can slip up, it happens and that's why
           | centralization is bad.
        
             | graemep wrote:
             | That is true.
             | 
             | However, I would say that the effect of this outage on
             | customer retention will be (relatively) smaller than it
             | would be for a smaller CDN.
        
               | MiscIdeaMaker99 wrote:
               | Maybe? Maybe not? It depends on the nature of the outage
               | and how motivated their customers are to switch over to a
               | new service.
        
               | littlestymaar wrote:
               | The good news is that we're just living in a perfect
               | natural experiment:
               | 
               | Cloudflare just caused a massive internet outage costing
               | millions of dollars worldwide, in part due to a very
               | sloppy mistake that definitely ought to have been
               | prevented (using Rust's "unwrap" in production ). Let's
               | see how many customers they lose because of that and
               | we'll see how big are their incentives. (If you look at
               | the evolution of their share value, it doesn't look like
               | the incident terrified their shareholders at least...)
        
               | AznHisoka wrote:
               | That experiment already happened last year with
               | Crowdstrike. Nothing detrimental happened. Their revenue
               | actually increased and stock went up
        
           | Krutonium wrote:
           | >I have sometimes been told its unprofessional or looks bad
           | to run things yourself instead of using a managed service.
           | 
           | That's an incredibly bad take lol.
           | 
           | There are times where "The Cloud" makes sense, sure. But in
           | my experience the _majority_ of the time companies over-use
           | the cloud. On Prem is GOOD. It 's cheaper, arguably more
           | secure if you configure it right (a challenge, I know, but
           | hear me out) and gives you data sovereignty.
           | 
           | I don't quite think companies realize _how bad_ it would be
           | if EG AWS was hacked.
           | 
           | Any Data you have on the cloud is _no longer your data_. Not
           | really. It 's Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, whoevers.
        
             | TheCraiggers wrote:
             | > I don't quite think companies realize how bad it would be
             | if EG AWS was hacked.
             | 
             | I don't think they'd care. Companies only care about one
             | thing: stock price. Everything rolls up into that. If AWS
             | got hacked and said company was affected by it, it wouldn't
             | be a big deal because they'd be one of many and they'd be
             | lost in the crowd. Any hit to their stock/profits would be
             | minimal and easily forgotten about.
             | 
             | Now, if they were on prem or hosted with Bob's Cloud and
             | got hacked? Different story altogether.
        
               | graemep wrote:
               | > Companies only care about one thing: stock price.
               | 
               | Its rarely affected in any case. Take a look at the
               | Crowdstrike price chart (or revenue or profits). I think
               | most people (including investors) just take it for
               | granted that systems are unreliable and regard it as
               | something you live with.
        
               | TheCraiggers wrote:
               | I think that's more of a indicator that it hasn't
               | effected their business. They lost nearly 1/5 of their
               | stock price after that incident (obviously not accounting
               | for other factors; I'm not a stock analyst). Investors
               | thought they'd lose customers and reacted in obvious
               | fashion.
               | 
               | But it's since been restored. According to the news, they
               | lost very little customers over the incident. _That_ is
               | why their stock came back. If they continued having
               | problems, I doubt it would have been so rosy. So yes, to
               | your point, a blip here or there happens.
        
             | NetMageSCW wrote:
             | Configuring something on premises to match the capabilities
             | of AWS or Azure or CloudFlare is very, very difficult and
             | involves a lot of local money and expertise that often
             | isn't available at any affordable price.
        
           | giancarlostoro wrote:
           | > A lot of people want the brand recognition too.
           | 
           | Not to mention the familiarity of the company, its services
           | and expectations. You can hire people with experience with
           | AWS, Azure or GCP, but the more niche you go, the higher the
           | possibility that some people you hire might not know how to
           | work with those systems and their nuances, which is fine they
           | can learn as they work, but that adds to ramp up time and
           | could lead to inadvertent mistakes happening.
        
             | dirkc wrote:
             | This could also be an anti-pattern for hiring - getting
             | people with Amazing Web Service (tm) certification and
             | missing out on candidates with a solid understanding of the
             | foundational principles these services are built on
        
               | giancarlostoro wrote:
               | I agree, though the industry does this all the time by
               | hiring someone with a degree vs someone who built key
               | infrastructure and has no degree, solely because they
               | have a degree. Remember, the creator of brew couldn't get
               | past a Google interview because they asked him to hand
               | craft some algorithm, I probably would have not done well
               | with those either. Does that make him or me worse
               | developers? Doubtful. Does it mean Google missed out on
               | hiring someone who loves his craft? Yes.
        
             | graemep wrote:
             | I think that is often the perception, but is usually
             | mistaken.
             | 
             | Smaller providers tend to have simpler systems so it only
             | adds to ramp up time if you hire someone who only knows AWS
             | or whatever. Simpler also means fewer mistakes.
             | 
             | If you stick to a simple set of services (e.g. VPS or
             | containers + object storage) there are very few service
             | specific nuances.
        
               | giancarlostoro wrote:
               | They also have the risk factor of leaving the market
               | entirely as well, and you having to scramble to pick up
               | the pieces.
        
           | mbesto wrote:
           | > Smaller providers have a much stronger incentive to be
           | reliable, as they will lose customers if they are not.
           | 
           | Hard disagree. A smaller provider will think twice about
           | whether they use a Tier 1 data center versus a Tier IV data
           | center because the cost difference is substantial and in many
           | cases prohibitively expensive.
        
             | sigmoid10 wrote:
             | This. There's a fundamental logic error here. You simply
             | don't hear about downtimes at smaller providers that often
             | because it doesn't affect a significant portion of the
             | internet like it does e.g. for AWS. But that doesn't mean
             | they are more stable in general.
        
               | itake wrote:
               | yeah, I'd like to see hard data on uptimes / reliability
               | between these 2 services before declaring that big = bad
               | and small = good.
               | 
               | FlyIO (and Digital Ocean) had horrible up-time when they
               | first got started. In the last 6-12 months, FlyIO been
               | much better. But they would go down all the time or have
               | unexpected CI bugs/changes.
               | 
               | Digital Ocean accidentally hard deleted user's object
               | stores before their IPO.
        
           | simultsop wrote:
           | And they sell when get big but can't afford to be.
        
           | pksebben wrote:
           | There is this weird thing that happens with hyperscale - the
           | combination of highly central decision-making, extreme
           | interconnection / interdependence of parts, and the
           | attractiveness of lots of money all conspire to create a
           | system pulled by unstable attractors to a fracturing point
           | (slowed / mitigated at least a little by the inertia of such
           | a large ship).
           | 
           | Are smaller scale services more reliable? I think that's too
           | simple a question to be relevant. Sometimes yes, sometimes
           | no, but we know one thing for sure - when smaller services go
           | down the impact radius is contained. When a corrupt MBA who
           | wants to pump short term metrics for a bonus gains power, the
           | damage they can do is similarly contained. All risk factors
           | are boxed in like this. With a hyperscale business, things
           | are capable of going much more wrong for many more people,
           | and the recursive nature of vertical+horizontal integration
           | causes a calamity engine that can be hard to correct.
           | 
           | Take the financial sector in 08. Huge monoliths that had
           | integrated every kind of financial service with every other
           | kind of financial service. Few points of failure, every
           | failure mode exposed to every other failure mode.
           | 
           | There's a reason asymmetric warfare is hard for both parties
           | - cellular networks of small units that can act independently
           | are extremely fault tolerant and robust against changing
           | conditions. Giants, when they fall, do so in spectacular
           | fashion.
        
             | KK7NIL wrote:
             | Have you considered that a widespread outage is a feature,
             | not a bug?
             | 
             | If AWS goes down, no one will blame you for your web store
             | being down as pretty much every other online service will
             | be seeing major disruptions.
             | 
             | But when your super small provider goes down, it's now your
             | problem and you better have some answers ready for your
             | manager. And you'll still be affected by the AWS outage
             | anyways as you probably rely on an API that runs on their
             | cloud!
        
               | smaudet wrote:
               | > Have you considered that a widespread outage is a
               | feature
               | 
               | It's a "feature" right up there with planned obsolescence
               | and garbage culture (the culture of throw-away).
               | 
               | The real problem is not having a fail-over provider.
               | Modern software is so abstracted (tens, hundreds, even
               | thousands of layers), and yet we still make the mistake
               | of depending on one, two layers to make things "go".
               | 
               | When your one small provider goes down, no problem,
               | switch over to your other provider. Then laugh at the
               | people who are experiencing AWS downtime...
        
               | NetMageSCW wrote:
               | That just leads to an upstream single point of failure.
        
               | KK7NIL wrote:
               | Very few online services are so essential that they
               | require a fail-over plan for an AWS outage, so this is
               | just plain over-engineering.
               | 
               | > Then laugh at the people who are experiencing AWS
               | downtime...
               | 
               | Let's not stroke our egos too much here, mkay?
        
               | yfw wrote:
               | Depends on your customers understanding that. We had a
               | gym with 'smart' pilates machines that went down. Hard to
               | explain to them the cloud is involved
        
           | runjake wrote:
           | _> Smaller providers have a much stronger incentive to be
           | reliable, as they will lose customers if they are not._
           | 
           | I disagree because conversely, outages for larger providers
           | cause millions or maybe even billions of dollars in losses
           | for its customers. They might be more "stuck" in their
           | current providers' proprietary schemes, but these kinds of
           | losses will cause them to move away, or at least diversify
           | cloud providers. In turn, this will cause income losses to
           | the cloud provider.
        
           | codexon wrote:
           | I've actually tried hetzner on and off with 1 server for the
           | past 2 years and keep running into downtime every few months.
           | 
           | First I used an ex101 with an i9-13900. Within a week it just
           | froze. It could not be reset remotely. Nothing in kern.log.
           | Support offered no solution but a hard reboot. No mention of
           | what might be wrong other than user error.
           | 
           | A few months later, one of the drives just disconnects from
           | raid by itself. It took support 1 hour to respond and they
           | said they found no issue so it must be my fault.
           | 
           | Then I changed to a ryzen based server and it also
           | mysteriously had problems like this. Again the support blamed
           | the user.
           | 
           | It was only after I cancelled the server and several months
           | later that I see this so I know it isn't just me.
           | 
           | https://docs.hetzner.com/robot/dedicated-server/general-
           | info...
        
         | herbst wrote:
         | Big fan of bunny.net as CDN, however Cloudflare is my "smart"
         | filter for all kind of attacks, AI scrapers, malicious traffic,
         | etc.
         | 
         | Am I missing something or is bunny.net not actually a
         | replacement for that?
        
           | Stoo wrote:
           | They've recently introduced bunny.net Shield to add a
           | security layer. I've not made use of it yet so I don't know
           | what the coverage is like or how effective it is:
           | https://bunny.net/shield/
        
             | herbst wrote:
             | This is very interesting. Thank you for making me aware!
        
           | benatkin wrote:
           | That component is what keeps me from using Cloudflare for
           | anything. Not because it exists, but because the way it's run
           | is terrible for the open web: https://www.theregister.com/202
           | 5/03/04/cloudflare_blocking_n...
        
         | valevk wrote:
         | How does Infomaniak compare to Proton? I see they have more
         | office productivity products, but regarding mail and drive?
        
         | alecco wrote:
         | This is worth its own post.
        
         | baaron wrote:
         | As an American solo developer, I am close to doing the same.
         | These mega-corps are out of control.
        
           | bananalychee wrote:
           | Out of control in what way?
        
         | spiderfarmer wrote:
         | Same here! I also got a nice peak in my traffic, because so
         | many sites were down.
        
         | GordonS wrote:
         | Are you using a US-based transactional email service like
         | Twilio? Curious about EU-based alternatives.
        
           | smashah wrote:
           | There are self hostable alts to twillio
        
           | pydubreucq wrote:
           | Hello, You can test Sweego - https://www.sweego.io/ We (I'm
           | the CTO) are fully European Bye Pierre-Yves
        
             | tacker2000 wrote:
             | nice, im looking to ditch SES, one of the last services i
             | have running on AWS
        
           | albertgoeswoof wrote:
           | https://mailpace.com is fully European based and independent
        
             | mosselman wrote:
             | They are based in the UK. That is technically Europe, but I
             | believe for privacy regulations it isn't the same as a EU-
             | country, but I could be very wrong. Would love to be
             | educated on this by someone.
        
               | albertgoeswoof wrote:
               | UK inherited the same gdpr from the EU, so practically it
               | remains the same.
               | 
               | MailPace data is also hosted in the EU only
        
           | supz_k wrote:
           | Hyvor Relay (https://github.com/hyvor/relay) can be self-
           | hosted. We are planning a cloud version for 2026. (I am a co-
           | founder)
        
         | nonethewiser wrote:
         | AWS and Cloudflare don't actually experience more downtime,
         | it's just a bigger story when they are down because so many
         | people use them.
         | 
         | You can use whatever infrastructure you want for whatever
         | reason, but you may not have an accurate picture of the
         | availability.
        
           | monooso wrote:
           | > AWS and Cloudflare don't actually experience more downtime,
           | it's just a bigger story when they are down because so many
           | people use them.
           | 
           | This may be true over a long enough timeframe, but GP stated
           | that their clients had experienced _no_ downtime since
           | switching at the start of the year.
           | 
           | That is clearly better than both AWS and Cloudflare during
           | that time.
        
             | count wrote:
             | My clients (extremely large) AWS based infrastructure
             | experienced no downtime this year. So, if it's based on
             | some random person's clients, it's not clearly better at
             | all.
             | 
             | I don't use cloud flare for anything, so no comment there.
        
               | monooso wrote:
               | > So, if it's based on some random person's clients, it's
               | not clearly better at all.
               | 
               | Valid. I should have made it clear that I meant "clearly
               | better from GP's perspective."
        
               | nonethewiser wrote:
               | Clearly better than what though?
        
             | nonethewiser wrote:
             | >GP stated that their clients had experienced no downtime
             | since switching at the start of the year
             | 
             | That's the least useful information.
             | 
             | What matters for his service availability is what he should
             | expect going forward. What matters for reviewing his
             | decision making process is _what he should have expected at
             | the time of choosing service providers._
        
         | INTPenis wrote:
         | Do you have anything for device management? Like managing local
         | admin accounts on Linux, Macintosh and Windows? I'm afraid
         | we'll have to use InTune.
        
         | sp4cec0wb0y wrote:
         | American solo developer here. Moved to Hetzner two months ago.
         | They have servers in Oregon for west coast people. My storage
         | box is in Germany but that is okay, it is for backups.
        
         | lilydjwg wrote:
         | Earlier this year, a Hetzner server I manage was shutdown, and
         | after I started it via the console, it booted to a rescue
         | system. In the same month, it was rebooted without a reason.
         | There was some maintenance notice but the server was not listed
         | as impacted.
         | 
         | Note that I'm not saying Hetzner is bad. Just incidents happen
         | in Europe too. The server didn't have a lot of issues like this
         | over the years.
        
         | supz_k wrote:
         | We are also looking to migrate off Cloudflare. I thought
         | Bunny.net was mostly a pure CDN, not a reverse proxy like
         | Cloudflare. Am I wrong? One of the most important things for us
         | would be DDoS protection.
        
         | cortesoft wrote:
         | I feel like a year is too short a time frame to measure
         | reliability.
        
       | BrenBarn wrote:
       | Sup dawg, I heard you like down detectors.
        
       | Brajeshwar wrote:
       | "Well, who's gonna monitor the monitors of the monitors?"
        
       | theturtlemoves wrote:
       | isisitdowndown.com is still free
        
       | p_v_doom wrote:
       | quid custodiet ipso custodes, amirite?
        
       | alentred wrote:
       | Niiice! Thank you for the laugh.
       | 
       | I wonder though where is it hosted? Digital Ocean? :)
       | 
       | As the Web becomes more and more entangled, I don't know if there
       | is any guarantee of what is really independent. We should make a
       | diagram of this. Hopefully no cyclic dependencies there yet.
        
       | mrbluecoat wrote:
       | Duplicate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45976670
        
       | makach wrote:
       | Slippery slope- just matter of time before someone makes a
       | downdetector for the downdetector for downdetector. Ad nauseum.
        
         | fragmede wrote:
         | What are you, an LLM? You point the first one at the second one
         | and create a loop instead of an infinite "one more" chain
        
       | jakub_g wrote:
       | Semi-related: Datadog recently created https://updog.ai
        
         | yahoozoo wrote:
         | Obligatory: https://youtu.be/ihlN5nf1qew
        
         | passivepinetree wrote:
         | I'm curious if this site actually uses AI in some form or if
         | it's just the hot TLD at the moment. There's no mention of AI
         | on the page itself.
        
       | jojobas wrote:
       | Make sure to host it at us-east-1 and proxy by cloudflare for
       | good measure.
        
       | mylons wrote:
       | This is GOLD Jerry, Gold.
       | 
       | but who detects the down detector detecting the down detector
       | detecting the down detector
        
         | PunchyHamster wrote:
         | See, that's the joke, all of them are on cloudflare/us-west-1
         | so they all go down together anyway
        
           | bryanrasmussen wrote:
           | pervs.
        
         | state_less wrote:
         | There's always another asking, "Are you down?" It's a bit of a
         | bop.
         | 
         | https://youtu.be/DpMfP6qUSBo
        
         | philipwhiuk wrote:
         | Or "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
        
         | graemep wrote:
         | Can down detector not detect whether down detector detector is
         | down or not?
         | 
         | Maybe distributed down detection?
         | 
         | I know there are people here perfectly capable of running with
         | that idea and we might just see a distributed down detector
         | announced on HN :)
        
         | falcor84 wrote:
         | I know you were joking, but responding in seriousness - while
         | in general it's worthwhile asking "Quis custodiet ipsos
         | custodes?", in this particular case, I don't see any issue with
         | Down Detector detecting the Down Detector Down Detector.
         | Assuming they are in different availability zones, using
         | different code, with a different deployment cadence, this
         | approach works quite well in practice.
        
           | Waterluvian wrote:
           | > Quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
           | 
           | Arbites.
        
             | falcor84 wrote:
             | "To serve the Emperor. To protect His domains. To judge and
             | stand guard over His subjects. To carry the Emperor's law
             | to all worlds under His blessed protection. To pursue and
             | punish those who trespassed against His word."
        
               | mylons wrote:
               | i love you guys.
        
           | mylons wrote:
           | haha -- this is the exact comment i was hoping to see!
           | indeed, i was joking. The Watchmen graphic novel is very
           | important to me as it opened my eyes to the concept of "who
           | watches the watchmen" which I was ultimately eluding to here,
           | albeit extremely facetiously.
        
         | joelhaasnoot wrote:
         | Time for the META Down Detector - detecting which of the three
         | is down
        
         | eYrKEC2 wrote:
         | You're on that site right now!
        
           | bombcar wrote:
           | HN is the true down detector - if HN is down TCP is down.
        
         | excalibur wrote:
         | It's detectors all the way down.
        
         | mproud wrote:
         | I think the original down detectors do
        
           | jl6 wrote:
           | Mutually assured down-detection.
        
         | MattSayar wrote:
         | https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/downdetectorsdowndetector.c...
        
       | pytlicek wrote:
       | I have similar project like this: https://hostbeat.info/ More
       | like t uptime robot and sure, I was really surprised yesterday
       | how many alerts I have got and how many notifications were sent
       | yesterday for this system users. Good work anyway
        
       | spiffyk wrote:
       | Now if you make one for isup.me, you could call it isisupup.me
        
       | Retr0id wrote:
       | How does it detect up-ness?
       | 
       | Downdetector was indeed down during the cf outage, but I think
       | the index page was still returning 200 (although I didn't check).
       | 
       | Running a headless browser to take a screenshot to check would
       | probably get you blocked by cf...
        
         | omoikane wrote:
         | It just fakes it as far as I can tell.
         | 
         | script.js calls `fetchStatus()`, which calls
         | `generateMockStatus()` to get the statuses, which just makes up
         | random response times:                   // ---- generate
         | deterministic mock data for the current 3-min window ----
         | function generateMockStatus() {           const bucket =
         | getCurrentBucket();           const rng = createRng(bucket);
         | // "Virtual now" = middle of this 3-minute bucket
         | const virtualNowMs = bucket * BUCKET_MS + BUCKET_MS / 2;
         | // Checked a few minutes ago (2aEUR"5 min, plus random seconds)
         | const minutesOffset = randomInt(rng, 2, 5);           const
         | secondsOffset = randomInt(rng, 0, 59);           const
         | checkedAtMs =             virtualNowMs - minutesOffset * 60_000
         | - secondsOffset * 1000;           const checkedAtDate = new
         | Date(checkedAtMs);                return {
         | checkedAt: checkedAtDate.toISOString(),             target:
         | "https://downdetector.com/",             regions: [
         | {                 name: "London, UK",                 status:
         | "up",                 httpStatus: 200,
         | responseTimeMs: randomInt(rng, 250, 550),
         | error: null               },               {
         | name: "Auckland, NZ",                 status: "up",
         | httpStatus: 200,                 responseTimeMs: randomInt(rng,
         | 300, 650),                 error: null               },
         | {                 name: "New York, US",                 status:
         | "up",                 httpStatus: 200,
         | responseTimeMs: randomInt(rng, 380, 800),
         | error: null               }             ]           };
         | }
        
       | josteink wrote:
       | If my checks are correct, this site uses Cloudflare for DNS and
       | AWS for hosting.
       | 
       | So if any of the things you want to know is down is down, chances
       | are this site will be too ;)
        
       | josefresco wrote:
       | I randomly started _vibe coding_ a website monitoring tool last
       | week knowing full well about the mature competitors in this space
       | and questioning myself along the way. Doesn 't seem so crazy now.
        
       | mhb wrote:
       | Three down detectors walk into a bar. The bartender asks them if
       | they're all up. The first says "I don't know". The second says "I
       | don't know". The third says "Yes".
        
         | khasan222 wrote:
         | Crying. I'm stealing this.
        
         | oniony wrote:
         | Presumably they're blind down detectors.
        
       | mobilene wrote:
       | It's stuff like this that makes me still love the Internet.
        
       | debo_ wrote:
       | Things might soon get bad enough that we will start calling them
       | "up detectors."
        
       | dapoyo wrote:
       | I had this same idea when I got the "Unblock
       | challenges.cloudflare.com" error while trying to access
       | downdetector, lol!
       | 
       | It looks really nice, good job!
        
       | calebm wrote:
       | To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.
        
       | zoidb wrote:
       | there is also https://isdowndetectordown.com/
        
       | moi2388 wrote:
       | How long before we can do REST over downdetectors?
        
       | waffletower wrote:
       | I made a picture of myself taking a picture of myself taking a
       | picture of my self in a mirror... at some point I solved my
       | halting problem and walked away.
        
       | _nickwhite wrote:
       | I think an important caveat here is that down detector was not
       | actually down, the cloudflare human verification component was
       | (AFAIK). I wonder if this downdetector down detector accounts for
       | that aspect? It was technically "not down" but still unusable.
        
       | tonymet wrote:
       | the internet can be divided up into factions like Divergent.
       | AWSubbies (orange), Azure-ants (blue), CloudFlaricons (black) &
       | the Rogues (jester colors, like Google). A proper down detector
       | would identify platform outages based on the number of faction
       | members who are down.
        
       | andreygrehov wrote:
       | Next, let's do a fact checker for fact checkers, haha
        
       | isaachinman wrote:
       | No love for Railway? They're running their own metal and are a
       | fantastic team.
        
       | SeanAnderson wrote:
       | https://downdetector.com/status/downdetector :)
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-11-19 23:01 UTC)