Earlier quoted context omitted.
THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER
Ref: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdf
Every time this story is posted somewhere, I just have to read it end to end.
Google loses data as lightning strikes
101–110 of 142 posts
Re: Google loses data as lightning strikes
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.10000yearclock.net/learnmore.html
Funny enough, its funded by Bezos
Bezos isn't the only one.
The Long Now foundation (http://longnow.org) has some other interesting projects besides the clock.
If you like this kind of thing, I'd suggest reading Neal Stephenson's Anathem. It might be hard to get into it, it might be his most impenetrable book yet but it really pays off later.
Re: Google loses data as lightning strikes
#103I work on cell sites, grounding system design and repair is a primary design element, even then, the presumption in the industry is that if a site takes a direct hit - or for that matter a nearby strike - the equipment is a total loss. The surge suppression gear we put in (lead ins at power feeds, RF feed, etc) is mostly to prevent a fire and to ensure the extra energy goes largely to ground.. but it won't prevent de…
Are you saying essentially that "There is no such thing as a surge protector, they don't physically exist. Only surge reducers exist." Because that's what it sounds like to me. EDIT: All right, I'll rephrase. According to Google's infobox from nat'l geographic, lightning generates up to 1 billion volts. -> Are surge protectors at even the highest-end data centers simply not rated to a billion volts of surge protectio…
There's a "protector", but the protection isn't guaranteed to be 100% effective.
That's an OK use of the language in this context and has many parallels in other fields. E.g. using a condom as protection against pregnancy and disease. Many people have learned the hard way that it's not 100%.
Re: Google loses data as lightning strikes
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similar to git, but if you have multiple branches of the same file, display them visually and allow the user to merge just that file?
If people have to do anything it's not good enough.
That is then mathematically impossible.
What if I edit the same pixel, in the same image, in the same nanosecond on two different devices, and then sync?
There are situations where conflicts are necessary. The focus should be on making conflict resolution easily accessible, not on trying to be smart and overriding files at random
Re: Google loses data as lightning strikes
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Glacier is also 99.999999999%. But those nines are only true if Amazon's software is bug-free. I've lost data on Glacier on my home account. They personally called me to apologize.
So empirically speaking their reliability is far, far worse than stated just based on that one data point.
How so? We'd need to know both how much data cjensen lost and how much data Glacier has in it to tell, neither of which I know from this conversation.
Re: Google loses data as lightning strikes
#106The cloud strikes back.
Re: Google loses data as lightning strikes
#107Relevant 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…
At this point, correlation matters. In the unlikely event that I lose at least 1 object, what is the conditional probability of losing another? (Forgetting about correlation was a big part of the MBS and LTCM financial failures)
They had a bigger problem: modeling with the wrong distribution.
Re: Google loses data as lightning strikes
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
"just 0.000001% of disk space was permanently affected." So Google just exhausted their 11 9's for centuries to come.
Which would be embarrassing if this had happened to a product offering such an SLA. Instead, this is just zone-local HDD storage. It will only affect customers that decided to run a system in a single site, making no snapshots or using cross-region replication, etc. Which may be quite a few seeing as there seems to be this misunderstanding that VMs "in the cloud" have physics-defying redundancy attributes. (Not sayin…
Well, single VM is not "the cloud". It's just a VM on some dude's computer. Your clients seem to have been mislead by the incredibly content-free marketing around "the cloud".
Re: Google loses data as lightning strikes
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Glacier is also 99.999999999%. But those nines are only true if Amazon's software is bug-free. I've lost data on Glacier on my home account. They personally called me to apologize.
So empirically speaking their reliability is far, far worse than stated just based on that one data point.
Who knows. Maybe his is the last data Glacier will lose in the next [suitably large number] years. That's bad luck, buddy!
Re: Google loses data as lightning strikes
#110Relevant 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…
You are making repeated trials, they just overlap.