91–100 of 468 posts
No disaster recovery plan? No offsite backups? Someone failed to applied the most basic principles that have existed for decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Works unless local laws specifically block you doing that which they do for some classes of data in some countries. Multi-cloud in the same country (if that exists in the country and is far enough apart) maybe .
Do cloud providers even share data center locations so you can assess the "far enough" bit yourself?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
War did not randomly came. America intentionally caused it. And has lawless goverment and unaccountable tech industry making it bad place for data.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me-south-1 (Bahrain), all 3 data centres providing the redundancy were blown up by Iran.[1] The redundancy was localised to small geographic area and a single government--something customers of AWS were hopefully aware of when they entrusted AWS with their data. It's always buyer beware for any claims of availability. Engineers completing a FMECA[2] will (or should) always state upfront what type of failure modes…
As far as I know, the attacks happened at different times. If Amazon knew that they had lost some data redundancy, shouldn’t they have been quickly mirroring that out of the region?
This is the flipside of data residency requirements that countries are now starting to require. If the EU wants to keep data in the EU, then great, but when the war comes and energy and infrastructure are hit, people would have wished for backups in North America, Asia, and the middle east.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That depends on the data. If this is EBS or single-AZ S3, then from Amazon's perspective this was correct. Backup responsibly (for any data that does need to be backed up) lives with the customer, and Amazon has no way of knowing about that. EBS data data is unrecoverable, and that's what's reported. Now if this was multi-AZ S3 or whatever then this would be significant. The article does not tell us what products wer…
I was unaware that Amazon even sold single AZ S3. 20% discount. Doesn't seem worth it. By the time I commit to purchasing S3 space, it has to be important data. I get that S3 is convenient and reasonably performant, but it is not cheap at all.
It was always a bad bet for billionaires like Bezos to become Trump enablers. You weren't buying a seat at the table, or the privilege of being left alone, you were just signing yourself up to be force-fed shit sandwiches over and over (And the shit-to-bread ratio gets worse as time goes on) You should have used your considerable resources to fight. If only billionaires would oppose aspiring tyrants with the same zea…
See also Tim Cook. Doesn't make it right to suck up to Trump, but it was, and unfortunately still is, a rational move.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> to-do list becomes securing weapons, vehicles and fuel. I toured a datacenter once back in the early 2000s and they showed me 30 days of generator fuel storage. When i asked them why 30 days and not 35 they replied "we're such a major customer of both electricity and fuel that if we don't get electricity or fuel for 30 days there's way bigger problems than your website not being online" hah.
That's probably already true for 7 days or less
No disaster recovery plan? No offsite backups? Someone failed to applied the most basic principles that have existed for decades.
Certainly, this event will inform people's disaster recovery plans, but when you're also looking at data residency requirements, small countries, and state level military action against your hosting provider, it can be hard to keep your data.