Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 468 posts

Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran

#141

Post by kjs3 »

Art9681 wrote: post #18

No disaster recovery plan? No offsite backups? Someone failed to applied the most basic principles that have existed for decades.

You apparently don't do business out here with the unwashed masses where "whadda mean with all that nonsense? It's cloud...it's by definition safe[1][2]!" is an all too common preconception.

[1] That's a quote, including the Boston accent. [2] The only one I had that was better was a C-level who said "why are you asking for all this money for security in Azure. It's Microsoft so it's already secure.". That, too, is a quote.

Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran

#142

Post by unethical_ban »

the8472 wrote: post #83
beejiu wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SLA excludes force majeure.

Making a probabilistic claim while excluding a factor that dominates those statistics is... is quite creative accounting.

Are you suggesting that their technical documents have separate availability numbers to predict geopolitical events and war?

Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran

#143

Post by londons_explore »

kevml wrote: post #96
altcognito wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s simply not true. I use S3 (well GCS mostly) for data that I wouldn’t be upset if it’s lost. And I pay the zonal discount for it.

Google internally has lots of possible redundancy levels for data.

They don't sell any of the lower and less reliable levels to the public, I suspect simply because the reputational damage from losing user data is so bad, and the news will take no notice of the fact the user got a discount for less reliable storage.

Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran

#144

Post by bigiain »

kibwen wrote: post #11
carefree-bob wrote: post #10

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.

For long-term backups you want offline cold storage in an underground facility in a friendly jurisdiction, not a datacenter.

We've beer-o-clock wargamed this a bit.

If I had an "important enough" client, I think I'd store all out local (Sydney + Melbourne AWS cross region) data to AWS Singapore (to protect against Australian jurisdictional and political risks) and to a non AWS cloud provider in the EU somewhere. I reckon thatd be close to as resilient a pile of hard drives in an underground bunker, for significantly less setup and ongoing cost, while also being much more available when needed. (Can you imagine the queue at the underground bunker when multiple AWS regions get bombed? Or even imagine getting to the bunker in "a friendly jurisdiction" while a shooting war is taking place?)

We haven't worked out a decent solution to Visa and Mastercard payment network going down for more than a couple of cloud billing cycles though.

Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran

#145

Post by sire-vc »

mjr00 wrote: post #131
the8472 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making a probabilistic claim while excluding a factor that dominates those statistics is... is quite creative accounting.

Force majeure carveouts are really common in every type of contract. You should check your home insurance contract, for instance... It likely would not cover an ICBM strike.

Somehow I feel like the biggest post-apocalyptic problem will be the loss of home equity due to uninsured damage causing a collapse of financial markets.

Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran

#146

Post by dannyobrien »

kjs3 wrote: post #132
dannyobrien wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I'm from the past. When countries in the 2010s -- especially Western countries -- started seeing data residency requirements as an acceptable aspect of national policies, as opposed to a weird authoritarian thing that only China and Russia imposed on their citizens, we[1] spent a bunch of time explaining to their lawmakers that having geographical redundancy was a good thing, actually, and that you should stop in…

and start talking about where administrative access and encryption keys lived Yeah, that was/is just another problem. Considering how that was actually handled in the real world before data residency laws came into force, I'm glad 'we' didn't convince those countries to put their citizens data at risk.

I'm not sure you were disagreeing with (past) me; but if you were, could you expand on your point?

Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran

#147

Post by cheeze »

altcognito wrote: post #84
advisedwang wrote: post #40

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.

Single AZ S3 has other benefits. The point isn't the price, it's that it's _highly performant_ since you can keep all of your reads in the same AZ

Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran

#148

Post by mitxela »

dannyobrien wrote: post #122
rishikeshs wrote: post #41

I think this is due to the data residency requirements in UAE. I'm working with a client in the health space and the government requirements requires me to store data only in UAE! Tried with AWS but they were not allowing any new instances and I had to go with Azure.

Hi, I'm from the past. When countries in the 2010s -- especially Western countries -- started seeing data residency requirements as an acceptable aspect of national policies, as opposed to a weird authoritarian thing that only China and Russia imposed on their citizens, we[1] spent a bunch of time explaining to their lawmakers that having geographical redundancy was a good thing, actually, and that you should stop in…

Is there not more than one data center in your country? Is the power feed at your office too small to put a computer there?

Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran

#149

Post by alistairSH »

jbverschoor wrote: post #128
rishikeshs wrote: post #41

I think this is due to the data residency requirements in UAE. I'm working with a client in the health space and the government requirements requires me to store data only in UAE! Tried with AWS but they were not allowing any new instances and I had to go with Azure.

You can always selfhost

... in the UAE, so only less risky if your office is remote enough it doesn't also make a nice target (like, say, located within/near Dubai's Internet City).

Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran

#150

Post by mitxela »

kevml wrote: post #96
altcognito wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s simply not true. I use S3 (well GCS mostly) for data that I wouldn’t be upset if it’s lost. And I pay the zonal discount for it.

You call it "discount" but it's a 20% discount on a 10x inflated price, so it's an 8x inflated price
Post reply on HN