I might be able to give you some numbers for AWS, but to your original point, there would be some documentation, and it wasn’t AWS making the claim. Gartner is considered as the third party that would be evaluating the competition for business models like cloud hosting and infrastructure. Their findings from the year 2014 and 2015 were that AWS was about 5x and 10x larger than the next 14 competitors all added together. I couldn’t say that if those numbers have continued to increase in 2016+, but I can’t see why this trend wouldn’t be continuing. As to some real numbers, I would be able to give some estimates for the region-based infrastructure. There would be about 16 regions currently in AWS. Each of these would be made of 2+ availability zones. Each AZ would be comprised of 1–6 data centers. Each data center would be containing 40,000–80,000 servers.
Before we discuss more, if you are willing to pursue AWS Certification, you should opt for the prep courses, which are being offered at the SPOTO Club.
Between 3% and 50% of the Internet would be relying on Amazon, depending on how you are going to measure it.
According to W3tech, AWS would be hosting about 4.7% of all websites. Keep in mind, there would be about 1.8 billion hostnames and 178 million websites would be using the AWS.
If you look at the top 10,000 websites, which I have taken from the Alexa ranking, the number changes dramatically:
You could also look at large companies, in which case Rackspace would be coming on top. Which should not be a surprise as they would be also hosting most of the largest eCommerce retailers, most of which compete with Amazon.
It would be depending on how you are going to define “essential”.
It’s certainly true that if Amazon Web Services went bust as well as entirely offline tomorrow, the impact would be a little bit like of apocalyptic:
- A large proportion of the web would be disappeared simply and instantly.
- Governments in many countries would have to suffer failures worse than they would have expected in a full-on cyber-war.
- Lots of Businesses would be losing their online presence. If they weren’t able to redirect things as well as re-host rapidly – possibly also rearchitect, if they were totally dependent on AWS-specific Services- they could fail very quickly due to cashflow starvation.
- The courts would logjam with lawsuits against companies upon whose AWS-based services people, as well as other companies, depended.
- Many stock markets would tank – a process would be only slightly damping by the fact that half of the stock markets would be relying on AWS for their back office.
- And – worst of all – Netflix would also be stopped!
- Countries whose governments as well as businesses weren’t so much dependent on AWS would, of course, would be continuing unabated and if anything buoyed by their relative success.
If this should teach you anything, it’s that, whichever would be your primary cloud provider, you should have a backup Grand Plan architecture which would be based on a different provider, maintaining your back office synced between the two. If you do, then if at all possible, don’t use Route 53 to host your DNS. You should handle that somewhere else so that you could flip providers at a moment’s notice if necessary. And don’t make your DNS configuration too much fancy: it’ll make that flipping process bit more difficult.
So, you have not understood the importance of AWS, and you might want to gain the certification too, if yes, do check out the courses, which are being offered at the SPOTO Club.