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. steveBK123 · 1789611385 · focus · HN ↗
  There's something reassuring in this for me.
  There's a lot of magic & handwaving from hyperscalers like AWS about redundancy. I always wondered about some of the engineering to make this absolutely (and literally) bullet proof. At the end of the day most of their answers when you push hard enough involved paying 2-3x to run everything across multiple zones/regions, and lots of awareness in your application to handle this.
  In any case, I think it's good that when a data center blows up the data is lost. Noteworthy for future skynet situation, etc.
  1. antonvs · 1789614898 · focus · HN ↗
    > I think it's good that when a data center blows up the data is lost. Noteworthy for future skynet situation, etc.
    Doesn’t really apply, because the only reason data was lost is because customers chose not to replicate it to other regions, either because of legal data residency requirements, cost, or just not bothering.
    If Skynet wants to make sure it’s backed up, none of that prevents it from doing so. Although it would be amusing if Skynet was stopped by a billing alert when it tries to copy itself to another region.
    mitxela · 1789625507 · focus · HN ↗
    AWS promises to keep data safe without requiring cross region redundancy. If you choose not to trust them that's valid but then why use them at all?
    Betelbuddy · 1789628585 · focus · HN ↗
    >> AWS promises to keep data safe without requiring cross region redundancy.
    A perfect example of a claim they never made.
    mitxela · 1789636767 · focus · HN ↗
    S3 is advertised as having 11 9's. That means in the entire history of S3 they've only lost a handful of objects, and will continue to lose objects at this same rate.
    antonvs · 1789661753 · focus · HN ↗
    Eleven nines covers ordinary infrastructure failures, not acts of war that physically destroy the underlying facilities.
    It's similar to any engineered artifact, like a skyscraper. They have a structural safety factor that defines their resilience to failures that the system is designed to tolerate, it doesn't make them immune to missile strikes.
    mitxela · 1789693628 · focus · HN ↗
    This is a normal failure mode in American military facilities in the Middle East. Whoever designed an American military facility in the middle east and did not intend for it to withstand missile attacks was incompetent.
    antonvs · 1789704956 · focus · HN ↗
    You think you can cover up your misunderstanding of how data durability numbers work with zealotry?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.