Thread

1. wewewedxfgdf · 1789594126 · focus · HN ↗

   [dead]

   1. knorker · 1789595081 · focus · HN ↗

      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.

      1. drnick1 · 1789596358 · focus · HN ↗

         > What's you point?

         Not the OP, but the point is that decentralized infrastructure is a lot more resilient to attacks of any kind.

         1. knorker · 1789632157 · focus · HN ↗

            Sure. But given that the affected customers would by definition not have offsite backup, the comparison is against a smaller operator that has way more risk of fires, theft, bankruptcy, incompetence, earthquakes, power delivery, and all the other risks.

            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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.