51–60 of 173 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wild that people don't realize that these "separate" systems in AWS all share things like the same control plane.
That is wrong in every way possible. Each service is isolated, has its own control plane, and often even split into multiple cells. Source: I worked there. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/wellarchitected/latest/reducing-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While that is certainly true, the idea that they can so rapidly decimate your data without the possibility to restore is still terrifying if that's your only copy of that data. They should have to hold it for at least 90 days. In my opinion, it should be more like six months to a year. In my mind, it's exactly equivalent to a storage space destroying your car five days after you miss a payment. They effectively stole…
It sounds like it wasn’t OP’s data though, which is an important distinction.
> When AWS demanded this vanished payer validate himself, I pointed out that I already had my own Wise card on file—the same card I’d used to pay before the payer arrangement, kept active specifically in case the payer disconnected while I was traveling or offline
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I once said to the CTO of the company I worked for "do we back up our source code"? He said, "no, it's on github". I said no more.
If the repo is on GitHub and two or more developers keep reasonably up-to-date checkouts on their local computers, the “3-2-1” principle of backups is satisfied. Additionally to that, if any of those developers have a backup strategy for their local computer, those also count as a backup of that source code.
CTO: "I know our entire github repo is deleted and all our source code is gone and we never took backups, but I'm hoping the developers might have it all on their machines."
CEO: "Hoping developers had it locally was your strategy for protecting all our source code?"
CTO: "It's a sound approach and ticks all the boxes."
CEO: "You're fired."
Board Directors to CEO: "You're fired."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If nobody has the repo checked out, what are the odds it's important? Oh boy. Tons of apps in maintenance mode run critical infrastructure and see few commits in a year.
And the people using it multiple times a year delete it afterwards?
My fear of this sort of thing happening is why I don't use github or gitlab.com for primary hosting of my source code; only mirrors. I do primary source control in house, and keep backups on top of that. It's also why nothing in my AWS account is "canonical storage". If I need, say, a database in AWS, it is live-mirrored to somewhere within my control, on hardware I own, even if that thing never sees any production t…
I once said to the CTO of the company I worked for "do we back up our source code"? He said, "no, it's on github". I said no more.
My fear of this sort of thing happening is why I don't use github or gitlab.com for primary hosting of my source code; only mirrors. I do primary source control in house, and keep backups on top of that. It's also why nothing in my AWS account is "canonical storage". If I need, say, a database in AWS, it is live-mirrored to somewhere within my control, on hardware I own, even if that thing never sees any production t…
I once said to the CTO of the company I worked for "do we back up our source code"? He said, "no, it's on github". I said no more.
If your boss is that daft, its probably a sign to bail out. Remember to do your own personal due diligence. Due dill is not something that you just do for someone else: do your own! Do your own personal risk assessment. If code was lost, who would be found accountable? You or them?
EDIT: PS - I am a CTO ...
They’ve really buried the lede here: this reads like the person paying for the account was not the post author, and AWS asked the payer (who from their perspective is the owner of the account) for information. That person wasn’t around to respond.
Me paying your bill doesn't give me ownership of your stuff - as far as AWS is concerned, your bill is paid, and that's the extent of their involvement, everything else is between you and me.
If what he writes is true, he remained the account holder and even had a backup billing method in place - something he probably wouldn't have if he wasn't the account holder.
I don't know if he's completely honest about the story, but "somebody else paid, so we decided they are now the owner" isn't how that works.
Cloud user here. If you would read your contracts, and it doesn't matter which cloud service you use, they all have the same section on Share Responsibility. https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/shared-responsibility-mode... You, the customer, are responsible for your data. AWS is only responsible for the infrastructure that it resides on.
AWS is not responsible for what you do with your data. AWS, on its own, is not going to make backups for you so you can recover from a failed DB migration you did yourself. AWS cannot be held responsible for your admin fat-fingering and deleting the entire prod environment.
However, AWS is responsible for the underlying infrastructure. The website you linked clearly shows "storage" as falling under AWS's responsibility: your virtual hard drives aren't supposed to just magically disappear!
If they can just nuke your entire setup with an "Oops, sorry!", what's all the talk about redundancy and reliability supposed to be worth? At that point, how are they any different from Joe's Discount Basement Hosting?