‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

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

530 points · 452 comments · berkeleyjunk

  1. Art9681 · · focus · HN ↗
    No disaster recovery plan? No offsite backups? Someone failed to applied the most basic principles that have existed for decades.
    1. sparkling · · focus · HN ↗
      If a AWS customer chooses to store their data in a single AZ, that is a design choice. AWS is not taking a daily copy of a entire regions S3 cluster and driving it to some warehouse for a "just in case" situation. That is why Multi-AZ exists.
      1. bigiain · · focus · HN ↗
        Isn't S3 claiming eleven nines of data durability?

        <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;aws.amazon.com&#x2F;s3&#x2F;storage-classes&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;aws.amazon.com&#x2F;s3&#x2F;storage-classes&#x2F;

        &quot;Additionally, S3 stores data redundantly across a minimum of 3 Availability Zones by default, providing built-in resilience against widespread disaster.&quot;

        I wonder if &quot;can&#x27;t restore some data&quot; includes any S3 data?

        I&#x27;d expect to lose EC2 instance EBS data in the event of a datacenter being destroyed, but I kinda assume I wouldn&#x27;t lose S3 data? Now I&#x27;m wondering if RDS backups are more like EBS or S3...

        1. mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
          1&#x2F;f noise strikes again
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.