Wouldn't successive lightning strikes be more likely due to ionisation of the air?
The volume of air ionized by a lightening strike is small and dissipates quickly because it's so hot.
Google loses data as lightning strikes
81–90 of 142 posts
Re: Google loses data as lightning strikes
#82Relevant amusing bit from the Amazon FAQ: "S3 is designed to provide 99.999999999% durability of objects over a given year. This durability level corresponds to an average annual expected loss of 0.000000001% of objects. For example, if you store 10,000 objects with Amazon S3, you can on average expect to incur a loss of a single object once every 10,000,000 years." I think my favorite part of that is "on average", a…
Do they spell out what assumptions they're working under? Because, for example, I'm pretty sure that the odds of a civilization-ending asteroid or comet strike in the next year, while quite low, are higher than what's implied by 99.999999999% durability on trillions of objects."
Well, the guarantee needs to be reasonable only as far as you and the courts are alive to sue them. (Corollary: you only need to sustain DDOS attacks when the rest of the internet infrastructure can sustain the traffic).
Re: Google loses data as lightning strikes
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree with you. Where they are intentionally misleading is in pretending that keeping one object for a zillion years is the same as keeping a zillion objects for one year.
Keeping one object for a zillion years sounds like an interesting project, now that you bring it up. Our data integrity is such that it will survive universal cataclysm and the reduction of all data to a single point of infinite energy.[1] [1]guarantee applies to a single bit of data[2] [2]bit value must be 1
All I could think of was Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.
Re: Google loses data as lightning strikes
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree with you. Where they are intentionally misleading is in pretending that keeping one object for a zillion years is the same as keeping a zillion objects for one year.
Keeping one object for a zillion years sounds like an interesting project, now that you bring it up. Our data integrity is such that it will survive universal cataclysm and the reduction of all data to a single point of infinite energy.[1] [1]guarantee applies to a single bit of data[2] [2]bit value must be 1
Re: Google loses data as lightning strikes
#85The real clouds are getting angry at companies misappropriating their name
In other news, real clouds file lawsuit against cloud providers for trademark and copyright infringement. :)
Re: Google loses data as lightning strikes
#86Relevant amusing bit from the Amazon FAQ: "S3 is designed to provide 99.999999999% durability of objects over a given year. This durability level corresponds to an average annual expected loss of 0.000000001% of objects. For example, if you store 10,000 objects with Amazon S3, you can on average expect to incur a loss of a single object once every 10,000,000 years." I think my favorite part of that is "on average", a…
That's one of the reasons that I'm excited about decentralized storage. Data stored on dozens or hundreds of nodes spread across multiple countries and jurisdictions is much more robust to things like earthquakes, storms, government intervention, and companies going out of business or changing their profitability model. It has a much stronger defence against black swan events.
When you are storing many billions of files consuming many millions of disks, you become vulnerable to black swan events, simply because you are rolling the dice so many times.
Re: Google loses data as lightning strikes
#87Wouldn't successive lightning strikes be more likely due to ionisation of the air?
Assuming they don't deplete the charge too much, maybe.
Re: Google loses data as lightning strikes
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree with you. Where they are intentionally misleading is in pretending that keeping one object for a zillion years is the same as keeping a zillion objects for one year.
Keeping one object for a zillion years sounds like an interesting project, now that you bring it up. Our data integrity is such that it will survive universal cataclysm and the reduction of all data to a single point of infinite energy.[1] [1]guarantee applies to a single bit of data[2] [2]bit value must be 1
THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER
Re: Google loses data as lightning strikes
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keeping one object for a zillion years sounds like an interesting project, now that you bring it up. Our data integrity is such that it will survive universal cataclysm and the reduction of all data to a single point of infinite energy.[1] [1]guarantee applies to a single bit of data[2] [2]bit value must be 1
http://www.10000yearclock.net/learnmore.html
Funny enough, its funded by Bezos
Re: Google loses data as lightning strikes
#90Relevant amusing bit from the Amazon FAQ: "S3 is designed to provide 99.999999999% durability of objects over a given year. This durability level corresponds to an average annual expected loss of 0.000000001% of objects. For example, if you store 10,000 objects with Amazon S3, you can on average expect to incur a loss of a single object once every 10,000,000 years." I think my favorite part of that is "on average", a…
Is that durability rate per-... user? project? s3-wide?
Important detail left out.
If there are 10,000,000 projects with 10,000 objects, then a system-wide durability of 99.999999999% would expect to drop 1 object per year.