331–340 of 468 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's beyond the reasonable control of Jeff Bezos. Even though he supports trump with billions of dollars, he didn't ask for this particular war.
I just gave the crazy man a lot of money knowing he wants to start a holy war. I did not want him to fund this particular holy war that turned out to be disadvantageous to me!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon never said you had to mirror your data across multiple regions to prevent Amazon-caused data loss.
It’s not really Amazon-caused
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.
Ahhh the downside of “data sovereignty” rules and the de-globalization meme strikes again. I’d bet a bajillion dollars the reason this happened is due to government thinking it’s a good idea to make it illegal to store data outside their country. Hey EU, take note of this next time you create silly data residency requirements that don’t allow data to travel outside your region. Encryption is an easy solution to multi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if they have payable SLA on this, most SLAs have Acts of God and Acts of War exemption.
But do they have Act of Special Operation exemptions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's you point? That if you had run your own DC in that region (because that was your business requirement) then you'd have better missile defense than AWS? Or maybe AWS or DIY, you are always responsible for geographic diversity? Anyone losing data over this lost it because they'd literally told AWS to only store it in one place.
You don't need better missile defense than AWS. You don't need missile defense at all because you won't be a target. 99.999999% of the land has no missile threat on it. You are actively increasing the threat to your business by running it on the same servers that military contractors run their software on.
Well, obviously.
> You don't need missile defense at all because you won't be a target.
No, you don't need it because you have offsite backups. And this is completely disconnected from whether you use AWS or DIY.
> you won't be a target.
Of missiles, maybe in this particular conflict, sure. But running a DC is not your core business, so which DC is more likely to be subject to burglary, power outages, diesel shortages (Amazon will have better negotiators than you), fire suppression, hell, private fire departments if needed, etc…
Was missiles or copper thieves the biggest threat, even there, in 2020? Would AWS or every small company be better at protecting against the latter?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The devil is always in the details. Somehow I feel that when we offload the responsibility to some one else we get this feeling that the other person/entity would be doing full diligence and whatever else is required to carry out the job perfectly. However in reality most of the times they just do the bare minimum to pass your evaluation criteria to get the job.
It's funny because this applies to children cleaning home bathrooms as a Saturday chore as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's you point? That if you had run your own DC in that region (because that was your business requirement) then you'd have better missile defense than AWS? Or maybe AWS or DIY, you are always responsible for geographic diversity? Anyone losing data over this lost it because they'd literally told AWS to only store it in one place.
The point is that AWS has the same problem as Wildberries. There is no difference at all between Wildberries and AWS data centers. If you don't know what Wildberries is then go watch their facilities systematically destroyed on YouTube - centralisation is a target. If your organization runs on AWS then you should have a contingency plan for the data center being destroyed by drones. Is that on your risk management pl…
If your organization runs on servers in your basement you should have a contingency plan for flooding, fire, copper thieves, diesel shortages, etc… etc… etc…
Or are you basically saying that the only safe place is outsourcing your ops to a mid sized operator? Too small and nobody will pay for the every day risks. Too big and it's a war target? Ok, let's continue that plan. Now military users move their workloads to the mid sized operators for the exact same reason you did. Oh no, we're back at square 1.
A plan of putting all your eggs in one basket is never good. And it's completely orthogonal to AWS vs the non-AWS options.
Pretty basic stuff.
> If you don't know what Wildberries is
Not exactly esoteric knowledge. But it's also not the same thing. Wildberries could not "back up" their inventory to an offsite location with the footprint of a suitcase.
> If your organization runs on AWS then you should have a contingency plan for the data center being destroyed by drones. Is that on your risk management plan?
Sure, if you discard ALL other risks, that happen every day, leaving only war as the remaining risk to manage, then your risk management plan makes sense.
But the other risks are still there. Your DC operator going bankrupt and having their power cut is a risk that didn't go away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's you point? That if you had run your own DC in that region (because that was your business requirement) then you'd have better missile defense than AWS? Or maybe AWS or DIY, you are always responsible for geographic diversity? Anyone losing data over this lost it because they'd literally told AWS to only store it in one place.
> What's you point? Not the OP, but the point is that decentralized infrastructure is a lot more resilient to attacks of any kind.
Sure, fewer customers per location, but the critique here is of customers who chose AWS, the fair comparison is NOT against those who chose to be in 6 different non-AWS DCs, but against those who chose to be in ONE non-AWS DC. Decentralized aggregated across customers or not, the customers who chose unluckily still lose data.