111–120 of 463 posts
This interview with an AWS leader isn’t aging well, from CBS Sunday morning: Pogue asked, "I don't mean to give anyone ideas, but let's say I figured out that one of these unmarked buildings was an AWS data center, and I blew it up. Are you saying that it's so backed up and redundant that you probably wouldn't notice?" Wood replied, "Yeah, you wouldn't notice. I mean, we might be a bit upset, but you wouldn't notice!…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Most likely, their own data residency terms prohibit this. It would be interesting to know if, when 2 out of 3 AZs got destroyed, customers got a heads up to move their data to a different region?
nobody wakes up one morning and chooses to launch instances, CDN or S3 and would choose Bahrain as that without a requirement to, we were contractually and legally forbidden (in the middle as a vendor) to copy even encrypted data where we don't have the key out for redundancy, so the best we could do was tell our subcustomers to download all of their buckets to their office or some employee laptops at their office
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?
me-south-1 is about 250 miles away from me-central-1, but that's not far enough in this instance. Given that, I think city level location information should be good enough.
250 miles is pretty good for weather or not specifically targeted destruction (wildfire / industrial explosions / arson), but it's clearly not enough if your data is in a building targeted in a regional war. Assuming datacenters remain targets in wartime, I think it's fair to assume if one datacenter in any particular country is attacked, all the rest of the datacenters in that country are likely to be attacked, too. In that case, offline storage (tapes and things) in inconspicuous locations might be the way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Offsite to.. where? Sea? Data residency in Gulf states is very strict and basically nothing is leaving the countries
A datacenter not owned/run by a major US or Israeli company seems like it might be a good first step.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi, I'm from the future. You might want to consider storing the data somewhere besides an Azure datacenter in the UAE.
> the government requirements requires me to store data only in UAE!
(The obvious option here might be an encrypted backup on some hard drives in a safe in a local office.)
No disaster recovery plan? No offsite backups? Someone failed to applied the most basic principles that have existed for decades.
If a AWS customer chooses to store their data in a single AZ, that is a design choice. AWS is not taking a daily copy of a entire regions S3 cluster and driving it to some warehouse for a "just in case" situation. That is why Multi-AZ exists.
https://aws.amazon.com/s3/storage-classes/
"Additionally, S3 stores data redundantly across a minimum of 3 Availability Zones by default, providing built-in resilience against widespread disaster."
I wonder if "can't restore some data" includes any S3 data?
I'd expect to lose EC2 instance EBS data in the event of a datacenter being destroyed, but I kinda assume I wouldn't lose S3 data? Now I'm wondering if RDS backups are more like EBS or S3...
This interview with an AWS leader isn’t aging well, from CBS Sunday morning: Pogue asked, "I don't mean to give anyone ideas, but let's say I figured out that one of these unmarked buildings was an AWS data center, and I blew it up. Are you saying that it's so backed up and redundant that you probably wouldn't notice?" Wood replied, "Yeah, you wouldn't notice. I mean, we might be a bit upset, but you wouldn't notice!…
That is actually surprising to me. Claims like that are pretty common, they make sense and they should be true, so even though I don't really know AWS (/Backblaze/Azure/whatever) redundancy planning in enough detail, I used to trust them. It's really worrying when they outright say it will be ok, and then a week later it turns out to be not ok.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Typically 300 miles geographically but could be hard in some Gulf States
In a Gulf State 300 miles is still within ballistic missile range and any belligerent is going to target both places if at all. Strictly speaking from a missile defense perspective there's an argument 2 sites are a waste of valuable interceptors.
(Encryption handles confidentiality concerns.)