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. krick · 1789598998 · focus · HN ↗
  That is actually surprising to me. Claims like that are pretty common, they make sense and they should be true, so even though I don't really know AWS (/Backblaze/Azure/whatever) redundancy planning in enough detail, I used to trust them. It's really worrying when they outright say it will be ok, and then a week later it turns out to be not ok.
  1. houssc · 1789599866 · focus · HN ↗
    The caveat is always "if you're using the service correctly" which is not necessarily free. Meaning taking advantage of multiple geo zones, building in redundancy to your stack, etc. Like everything he said is possible if your technology stack living in AWS was designed to survive it. Everyone who has ever had the "we lost your data" email from AWS knows at the end of the day the cloud is just someone else's data center with neat provisioning tools and services.
    jacquesm · 1789600529 · focus · HN ↗
    The problem is that lots of people seem to be under the impression that they are doing it right because they are using AWS. They don't realize that AWS is a toolbox, not a 'ready made solution for redundancy against all catastrophes you are possibly exposed to'. They use that to their advantage by pricing such solutions at a level that people will either pay through the nose or will be left without recourse when AWS loses their data. It's stupid, but at the same time these beliefs are surprisingly wide spread.
    Avicebron · 1789607483 · focus · HN ↗
    Not to be callous but even the 3-2-1 rule is pretty basic, the issue is that people don't apply it. But that's a hiring and strategy thing.
    SlightlyLeftPad · 1789608754 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    sokoloff · 1789609287 · focus · HN ↗
    What?! Publicly traded companies are not “legally bound to return growth in share price or dividends.”
    There are plenty of companies who pay no dividends and have not returned growth in share price. They’re still operating and no one’s coming to throw the execs in jail.
    On the off chance that there is such a law, please cite it.
    upboundspiral · 1789611533 · focus · HN ↗
    Not a law perhaps, but an ingrained neoliberal philosophy that is pervasive in certain management cultures in the US definitely.
    dotancohen · 1789628451 · focus · HN ↗
    Neoliberal philosophy is stable ground for a lawsuit?
    paganel · 1789632494 · focus · HN ↗
    In a Gramscian understanding of the world it is, yes. Forget Gramsci, right now I'm finishing reading a book by Maurice Gauchet [1] (not a leftist by any means) whos's saying exactly that, i.e. that neo-liberalism is very much defined by its insistence on relying on " le juridique"
    > Ce dérèglement se manifeste avant tout par la réduction de la démocratie à une logique juridique, le néolibéralisme ayant imposé une conception où le droit, érigé en garant exclusif de la liberté individuelle, relègue le politique à une fonction purement gestionnaire
    automatically translated as
    > This dysfunction manifests itself primarily through the reduction of democracy to a legalistic logic, as neoliberalism has imposed a conception in which the law—elevated to the status of exclusive guarantor of individual liberty—relegates the political realm to a purely managerial function.
    [1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Gauchet" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Gauchet
    RugnirViking · 1789633378 · focus · HN ↗
    so a sort of "the law says its okay so how dare you say its immoral. It's my right to do this" sort of thing?
    paganel · 1789636929 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, that sort of thing, where the law sort of dictates the current morality based on the "morality" the of above mentioned neo-liberal order/current state of things.
    Of course that all this is kind of circular, meaning the (neo-liberal) morality imposing itself via law on the current (and by now surpassed) morality, but that's how things usually go when it comes to societal theory.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.