Live data from Hacker News

Is Amazon's cloud service too big to fail?

fnlondon.com

111–120 of 164 posts

Re: Is Amazon's cloud service too big to fail?

#111
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think there's a global world admin web console ?

Well as a customer how do you interact with it? Do you have one admin interface per region with its own URL or do you just go on an AWS homepage, login and control everything from there?

Separate end points. Also, AWS recommends that you might want multiple different accounts for more isolation [1]

[1] https://aws.amazon.com/answers/account-management/aws-multi-...

Re: Is Amazon's cloud service too big to fail?

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially because AWS regions are broken up into multiple availability zones (data centres in the same area). So taking out a single data centre won't do much if the AWS customers have correctly designed their systems for high-availability (ie having redundant instances in other AZs/regions with their data backed up elsewhere).

That's a big if. The S3 outage in February this year showed that there are a lot of sites that aren't designed for this.

The S3 outage was across the whole US-EAST-1 region, not just one data centre.

I know my company and a few others that are redundant within a region (ie if one AZ goes down), but not if a whole region goes down.

Re: Is Amazon's cloud service too big to fail?

#113
It took me three reads of the first couple of paragraphs to realise that "snowball" and "snowmobile" were actually hardware products that you can touch. Tech news publishers need to do a jargon check and use appropriate punctuation, formatting or something to call out terms that 90% of readers would not have come accross

Re: Is Amazon's cloud service too big to fail?

#114

It took me three reads of the first couple of paragraphs to realise that "snowball" and "snowmobile" were actually hardware products that you can touch. Tech news publishers need to do a jargon check and use appropriate punctuation, formatting or something to call out terms that 90% of readers would not have come accross

Maybe its because I saw your comment before reading, but I had no problem understanding the first few paragraphs.

The author states that a "snowball" is a grey suitcase with 50tb of HDD space inside, and a "snowmobile" is a massive 18 wheeler with what I would assume is petabytes of storage.

Re: Is Amazon's cloud service too big to fail?

#115
post #2

This is (I was surprised) a pretty good article. Financial services are regulated and based on recent experience, they're concerned with systemic risk. Most industries do not have anyone responsible for worrying about this kind of thing. It seems reasonable to start worrying about the fragility potentially introduced by these massive internet infrastructure companies.

If you wanted to blow something up to make the west suffer, an AWS datacenter would probably be a pretty good target. I wonder at what point that becomes a legitimate national security concern, and the government steps in to provide protection.

Yes, this goes to show that there are ~zero terrorists in the US. The US has an almost infinite supply of soft targets, but since 9/11 there have been no attacks of any consequence. There have been a few minor attacks like Boston bombers, but those have all been laughably amateurish.

The US has no terrorism problem. In 1979, the Irish killed the Queen's uncle in law, and in 1984, they blew up a hotel where Thatcher was staying. That's a serious terrorism problem! What the US has is nothing by comparison. We were unlucky on 9-11, and ever since we've been distorting our foreign policy out of unreasonable fear.

Re: Is Amazon's cloud service too big to fail?

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporate entities were radically more powerful in Teddy Roosevelt's day, far beyond what they are today. They were almost entirely unchained in regards to economic power, whereas today there is hyper regulation (tens of thousands of pages of it, including direct Fed control over the banking system). Standard Oil was as powerful as the US Government in that era, as were the railroads. JP Morgan was far more powerful…

Why leave it at American companies? The Dutch East India Company was far more powerful and bigger than any company seen today.

Beyond that, it was more powerful than many (maybe most) modern governments. It was an international power unto itself.

Re: Is Amazon's cloud service too big to fail?

#117
post #114

It took me three reads of the first couple of paragraphs to realise that "snowball" and "snowmobile" were actually hardware products that you can touch. Tech news publishers need to do a jargon check and use appropriate punctuation, formatting or something to call out terms that 90% of readers would not have come accross

Maybe its because I saw your comment before reading, but I had no problem understanding the first few paragraphs. The author states that a "snowball" is a grey suitcase with 50tb of HDD space inside, and a "snowmobile" is a massive 18 wheeler with what I would assume is petabytes of storage.

It's probably because it's 5 in the morning here :-) But looking at Amazon's own references to the appliances, they always capitalise the name. I guess what I can only assume was intentional obscuring what are probably trademarks made it read poorly to me.

Re: Is Amazon's cloud service too big to fail?

#119
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the point of the article we're commenting on is that AWS is far from "a few websites"

You can live without Netflix much longer than you can without a flushing toilet, is the point I'm making. Yet we don't have armed guards patrolling the sewageworks... It's a matter of priority how finite security personnel are deployed.

The thing is the dispatch system for those security guards may well be running on AWS or other cloud - once they become uberized, even more likely.

Re: Is Amazon's cloud service too big to fail?

#120
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the point of the article we're commenting on is that AWS is far from "a few websites"

You can live without Netflix much longer than you can without a flushing toilet, is the point I'm making. Yet we don't have armed guards patrolling the sewageworks... It's a matter of priority how finite security personnel are deployed.

The thing is the dispatch system for those security guards may well be running on AWS or other cloud - once they become uberized, even more likely.
Post reply on HN