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

Post by sandeepkd » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 2:42 AM UTC

krick wrote: post #109

cmiles8 wrote: post #73

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.

Post by hsbalanxvxjsmab » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 3:04 AM UTC

kjs3 wrote: post #205

dannyobrien wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, exactly. There's a peculiarly unsatisfying kind of vindication that comes from making "slippery slope" arguments, and then watch them play, and now you are now both a) technically correct, and b) fucked. You'll excuse me if I have a brief "I told you so" moment about a scenario about Amazon's UAE datacenters being bombed without bakcups because of a US-instigated Iranian conflict, where -- if I'd ever dared to d…

I guess we aren't really close. You're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that data sovereignty laws are unconditionally bad because they inevitably lead to totalitarian followon laws and there's nothing to stop them. I'm saying if we didn't have enforceable data sovereignty laws we would be in worse shape for data privacy and we should have prevented the followon laws from coming to be (and, true enough, we didn't). F…

Post by antonvs » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 3:14 AM UTC

steveBK123 wrote: post #235

cmiles8 wrote: post #73

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!…

There's something reassuring in this for me. There's a lot of magic & handwaving from hyperscalers like AWS about redundancy. I always wondered about some of the engineering to make this absolutely (and literally) bullet proof. At the end of the day most of their answers when you push hard enough involved paying 2-3x to run everything across multiple zones/regions, and lots of awareness in your application to handle…

Post by htrp » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 3:34 AM UTC

antonvs wrote: post #245

steveBK123 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's something reassuring in this for me. There's a lot of magic & handwaving from hyperscalers like AWS about redundancy. I always wondered about some of the engineering to make this absolutely (and literally) bullet proof. At the end of the day most of their answers when you push hard enough involved paying 2-3x to run everything across multiple zones/regions, and lots of awareness in your application to handle…

> I think it's good that when a data center blows up the data is lost. Noteworthy for future skynet situation, etc. Doesn’t really apply, because the only reason data was lost is because customers chose not to replicate it to other regions, either because of legal data residency requirements, cost, or just not bothering. If Skynet wants to make sure it’s backed up, none of that prevents it from doing so. Although it…

Post by pianopatrick » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 3:43 AM UTC

houssc wrote: post #230

jacquesm wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that lots of people seem to be under the impression that they are doing it right because they are using AWS. They don't realize that AWS is a toolbox, not a 'ready made solution for redundancy against all catastrophes you are possibly exposed to'. They use that to their advantage by pricing such solutions at a level that people will either pay through the nose or will be left without recourse when AWS…

Yep, a lot of non-technical leaders believe that 'cloud' is synonymous with 'DR strategy' or even 'backup'. "We won't have to worry about being offline if our server goes down if we move to the cloud!" Some of these people fundamentally don't understand what the cloud is, their assumption is cloud means easy button that solves all your infrastructure and uptime problems.