Thread

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

530 points · 452 comments · berkeleyjunk

cmiles8 · 1789596948 · focus · HN ↗
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!"
<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cloud-computing-loudoun-county-virginia/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cloud-computing-loudoun-county-...
1. echoangle · 1789599282 · focus · HN ↗
  Isn’t the problem that multiple datacenters in one zone were blown up?
  1. computomatic · 1789623997 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, this, and the article seems pretty clear that only "some data stored exclusively in Bahrain" is affected. Add to that the option to store data with reduced redundancy (in S3, for example), and I don't really see what the drama is about.
    Amazon only claims "99.999999999% durability" per year, even for the properly replicated stuff.[0]
    [0] <a href="https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/DataDurability.html" rel="nofollow">https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/DataDu...
    Terr_ · 1789627110 · focus · HN ↗
    > stored exclusively in
    Now I'm thinking about legal/contractual rules that might force that kind of geographic risk.
    I mean, logically you could have the Allowable Location send pre-encrypted backups to anywhere in the world, except (A) laws and regulations aren't always logical and (B) you still have the problem of keeping the decryption keys somewhere safe without leaving the key jurisdiction.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.