e: Yep
And has lawless goverment and unaccountable tech industry making it bad place for data.
"It's the only way." the true believers say.
"You can't run your own computer systems.", they say.
"Trust us.", they say.
“No one ever got fired for buying IBM.”
Wildberries has nothing to do with AWS.
"Massive centralisation of computing can never go wrong."
"We don't need to host our own systems, it's all safe in one of 20 global data centers."
etc etc
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.
I get your main point, but just wanna point out that AWS is one of the largest military contractors in the world. They hold multi-billion dollar contracts from the DoD, USAF, CIA, and more. An estimated $4B a year in military spending goes to AWS
There is no difference at all between Wildberries and AWS data centers.
If you don't know what Wildberries is then go watch their facilities systematically destroyed on YouTube - centralisation is a target.
If your organization runs on AWS then you should have a contingency plan for the data center being destroyed by drones. Is that on your risk management plan?
Earlier this week I mentioned that if we lose enough data centres to bring our operation down, the first items in the to-do list becomes securing weapons, vehicles and fuel.
"I was in the office, reviewing Terraform plans"
He just couldn't get past the notion that if the six copies in four buildings across two states were all simultaneously physically destroyed, then most likely there are also no more schools left standing, and hence the contracts to clean them are null and void. Also, payment is now in booze and ammunition, not dollars.
I toured a datacenter once back in the early 2000s and they showed me 30 days of generator fuel storage. When i asked them why 30 days and not 35 they replied "we're such a major customer of both electricity and fuel that if we don't get electricity or fuel for 30 days there's way bigger problems than your website not being online" hah.
Multi-cloud in the same country (if that exists in the country and is far enough apart) maybe.
Seriously, it's like people, when deciding whether to launch a war or not, are not thinking "how will the other side react and will this conflict benefit me" but instead they are only thinking "does this nation deserve to get hit".
Well, news flash, your moral outrage does not translate into you not suffering more than your opponent during a conflict. It's a completely separate issue, and a personal issue between you and your priest or rabbi. When it comes to starting wars, you have to look at military capabilities and long term outcomes, not "does this nation deserve to be attacked".
DR/BCP costs are readily justified by doing a Business Impact Analysis (BIA).. budget up to some fraction of risk cost * risk probability.
And a friendly reminder that replication isn't a tested data backup.
If OP tells me the name of his company I can hop in my time machine and tell him how it plays out.
You should have used your considerable resources to fight. If only billionaires would oppose aspiring tyrants with the same zeal with which they oppose even minor tax increases.
See also Tim Cook. Doesn't make it right to suck up to Trump, but it was, and unfortunately still is, a rational move.
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!"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cloud-computing-loudoun-county-...
> In the unlikely case of the loss or damage to all or part of an AWS Availability Zone, data in a One Zone storage class may be lost. For example, events like fire and water damage could result in data loss
Let's just revisit all the different acts of war that the EU has already done:
* Seizing sovereign reserves
* Seizing Russian ships on the high seas
* Sending special forces and other "military advisers" to launch long range attacks on Russian soil.
* Sending in commandos to launch attacks on nuclear power plants
And when this happens, and EU data centers are hit, you will probably still blame America and then not make any connection with data residency requirements and the resulting chaos.
Putin is launching and provoking wars, not the EU.
> you will probably still blame America
No, we would blame Putin, because he's the blameworthy party.
As for Iran, Trump (and Trump voters by extension) is the blameworthy party. I don't even think any other R would have been dumb enough to go at Iran like this.
You are really obsessed with blaming groups of people, which is a terrible reason to commit acts of war. When you go up to someone and punch them in the face, the fact that you think they deserve it has zero influence on whether they decide to punch you back. You need to understand that instead of viewing the world as an emotionally incontinent child. This is for grownups, not morally outraged children, and the EU needs to grow up, and not do something because they think the other side deserves it, but to consider how the other side will react.
Now if Russia launches long range strikes against EU infrastructure, and seizes EU ships, and sends commando raids into EU territory, you will be stunned, stunned and will mutter to yourself "How could this possibly happen?? How dare they attack me for no reason?!" and this is how you blunder into a war that you will certainly lose, all because you did not think of how the other side will react, and instead focused on your own misguided blaming of others, thinking your own moral outrage justifies seizing sovereign assets, seizing ships, and shooting missiles deep into the territory of your opponent, thinking there will be no repercussions because in your own mind, they deserve it.
https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/documents/2021-06/ed...
It's true that you are less likely to be a target than a state-sponsored tech megacorp's data centers, but the risk is still present.
Living is risk, every time I go to the shop for milk there is a non-zero chance I don't come back but the risk is so low I don't worry about it.
Yes but that's clearly not this war. This is a missile war where high-value strategic military targets are the priority. The US and Israel hit some prisons, damaged some hospitals, and ofc killed 168 schoolchildren. They also targeted residential areas to assassinate important leaders. But Iran has not returned that. They've stuck pretty strictly to military targets with very few exceptions
If this was a war where bridges were a target, Iran would not be so successful. There's simply a too limited amount of missiles. Also only 20% of Saudi Arabia has citizenship while almost the whole rest is basically indentured servants. It's not like they could provoke a popular uprising or anything. There's no strategic value in hitting "bread lines"
Not the OP, but the point is that decentralized infrastructure is a lot more resilient to attacks of any kind.
It can be true that using cloud storage, using managed services, and paying a premium is still worth it for a lot of people and organizations, and while not perfect, still a hell of a lot better compared to the fully in your control tape backups that you distribute to different physical locations every week.
I'm not a particular fan of relying on one provider or vendor lock in, but to pretend they don't provide a service with failure rates that are low enough to be very useful is a very short-sighted take.
How are you dealing with the rise of low-cast swarm attacks from drones?
Is it land-based, sea-based or space-based and at what point of the trajectory do you target and do you use jamming?
Now if this was multi-AZ S3 or whatever then this would be significant.
The article does not tell us what products were impacted.
I get that S3 is convenient and reasonably performant, but it is not cheap at all.
You talking as if this is some mom-and-pop shop that you run.
Certainly, this event will inform people's disaster recovery plans, but when you're also looking at data residency requirements, small countries, and state level military action against your hosting provider, it can be hard to keep your data.
markive•1d ago
MiroslavPokorny•22h ago
OrangeDelonge•20h ago
dhx•12h ago
It's always buyer beware for any claims of availability. Engineers completing a FMECA[2] will (or should) always state upfront what type of failure modes they've deliberately excluded (such as meteor strike) or else every FMECA would be full of failure modes that have never been measured, and are not worth anyone's time worrying about. These exclusions vary by application--a time capsule, seed vault, etc are intended to outlast wars and collapses of empires. Typically a bunch of data centres aren't designed to withstand such failures.
I do think however it'd be reasonable to include the prospect of war for calculating data centre / cloud service availability. Especially in a place such as Bahrain where the country is obviously concerned enough about the prospect of war to have built very permanent and expensive air/missile defence sites. New Zealand on the other hand--maybe not so important to consider.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49033240
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_Mode,_Effects,_and_Cri...
0cf8612b2e1e•1h ago
testplzignore•53m ago
"You choose the AWS Region(s) in which your content is stored. You can replicate and back up your content in more than one AWS Region. We will not move or replicate your content outside of your chosen AWS Region(s) without your agreement."
ericpruitt•24m ago
sparkling•13m ago
zmgsabst•58m ago
Regions were always the scale of disaster isolation on AWS.
flumpcakes
gregw2•59m ago
Although the more paranoid AWS customers who turned on (and pay for) S3 cross region replication or similar cross region DR for other services would be fine.