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

Operational issue – Multiple services (UAE)

health.aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 125 posts

Re: Operational issue – Multiple services (UAE)

#91

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

DANmode wrote: post #83
itemize123 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so they self-destruct to force better terms of negotiation.

I’ve done some light game theory reading - but this isn’t covered - if they’re gone, who are they getting better terms for?

> I’ve done some light game theory reading - but this isn’t covered - if they’re gone, who are they getting better terms for?

I think the idea can be that they are getting worse terms for America. Saddam Hussein from Iraq lost as well but the war was so messy that so so many americans died in bloodshed and gruesome ways and there was a whole gulf war syndrome within Army with severe PTSD.

This makes the people highly unreceptive of war and the govt should have more pressure from people. So in theory, America should've thought twice before attacking the same region.

I also think, that its hard to ever really remove an ideology. You definitely see ideologies of the past spring up in future and I think that sure they might lose the govt power but they would still have some influence for what its worth.

Also, Ayatollah was killed by these forces. Atleast the highly religious of people of Iran/politicians might spin the story to become religious which does have such ideas of inflicting maximum damage to the opponent at times.

I don't think that game theory can be applicable for religious/personal matters at times

Re: Operational issue – Multiple services (UAE)

#92

Post by breppp »

sebastiennight wrote: post #84
dehrmann wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> impacted by objects Well that's a way of phrasing it. I assume these were missiles.

Most likely, those were debris from the interception of missiles flying overhead and being destroyed on their way to a military target. AFAIK, there have been no confirmed signs of civilian sites being targeted directly, and it would also be unlikely that actual missiles would cause so little damage that you could patch your datacenter up and get it ready to go within hours.

That's incorrect, there have been multiple hotels being attacked and recently oil facilities in SA

Re: Operational issue – Multiple services (UAE)

#93

Post by breppp »

p-o wrote: post #19

Interesting adjacent theory is how much are datacenters becoming military target to strike as part of disrupting initial defenses. It doesn't seem it was the case in this instance, but I could see this becoming a more important target in future. Seems like it should be somewhat easier to bomb 50 datacenters than it would be to hack and disrupt 1000s of different services. Again, this is just me thinking out loud on a…

> doesn't seem it was the case in this instance

To me it absolutely looks like the case in here, what are the chances three availability zones across two different countries have been attacked?

Re: Operational issue – Multiple services (UAE)

#94

Post by skywhopper »

vntok wrote: post #56
jiggawatts wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of a visit to an Equinix data centre where the sales person was droning on and on about how incredibly reliable their power supplies were, how uninterruptible everything was, etc, etc… Essentially, he was trying to assure us that no-no-no, we don’t need multiple zones like the public clouds, they can instead guarantee 100% uninterrupted power under all circumstances. A bit bored and annoyed, I pointed…

Should have pushed it.

My boss at my first job hit the Big Red Button by swinging his arms too big in our datacenter one day, shutting down hundreds of servers and the mainframe, wreaking havoc for days!

That was when we installed the Big Clear Button Cover.

Re: Operational issue – Multiple services (UAE)

#95

Post by jiggawatts »

bigfatkitten wrote: post #88
protocolture wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equinix in Sydney plonked 2 datacenters right on top of each other, and still insists that they are useful as redundant sites. There was a locally very funny situation for a while when a tech influencer was insisting both equinix sites could be shut down by a single building collapse. He was wrong, but he wasn't so wrong that people shouldn't make better infrastructure decisions.

The two in Alexandria are of course just down the road from the airport. A widebody jet cratering in that location will put them both out of business.

They're also below sea level.

Re: Operational issue – Multiple services (UAE)

#96

Post by debo_ »

Cyph0n wrote: post #14
debo_ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I first learned that there were AWS Middle East regions, my first thought was "wow they are more optimistic than I am ."

No, they are more aware of the customer demand for compute in the region.

Yes of course. But they also have to know that concentrated compute is an attractive target for marauding countries that decide on a whim to bomb you from outside.

Re: Operational issue – Multiple services (UAE)

#97

Post by treesknees »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #26
p-o wrote: post #19

Interesting adjacent theory is how much are datacenters becoming military target to strike as part of disrupting initial defenses. It doesn't seem it was the case in this instance, but I could see this becoming a more important target in future. Seems like it should be somewhat easier to bomb 50 datacenters than it would be to hack and disrupt 1000s of different services. Again, this is just me thinking out loud on a…

> Seems like it should be somewhat easier to nuke 50 datacenters than it would be to hack and disrupt 1000s of different services. The bigger part of me seems that if we someone nukes 50 datacenters all at once or say all of Amazon's datacenters at once, then the data stored in there would simply be gone and given so many datacenters are located in Virginia,USA iirc or just so many companies being reliant on few data…

In my experience many middle eastern companies tend to only operate out of the Middle East AZ’s. They’re not backhauling their data and customers to us-east-1. If the goal is to severely disrupt middle eastern rivals, then you don’t need to hit every possible AWS datacenter.

Re: Operational issue – Multiple services (UAE)

#98

Post by underdeserver »

seydor wrote: post #70

Iran may be heavily overpowered but they play their cards well. They will lose the war but the economic damage to the gulf is irreparable

Irreparable? That's a big claim.

Long term I think if the regime in Iran changes and better economic cooperation becomes possible everyone will benefit.

Re: Operational issue – Multiple services (UAE)

#100

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

treesknees wrote: post #97
Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems like it should be somewhat easier to nuke 50 datacenters than it would be to hack and disrupt 1000s of different services. The bigger part of me seems that if we someone nukes 50 datacenters all at once or say all of Amazon's datacenters at once, then the data stored in there would simply be gone and given so many datacenters are located in Virginia,USA iirc or just so many companies being reliant on few data…

In my experience many middle eastern companies tend to only operate out of the Middle East AZ’s. They’re not backhauling their data and customers to us-east-1. If the goal is to severely disrupt middle eastern rivals, then you don’t need to hit every possible AWS datacenter.

Interesting, I didn't know that so thanks for telling me something new.

But why is this the case? Like, saving costs? Doesn't this recent attack on AWS DC does show that they aren't as safe as previously thought especially in a region of conflict.

Is there any particular reason as to why this is the case?

Post reply on HN