3 ms·
This is S3 which isn't comparable to Google's persistent disks. S3 is equivalent to Google Cloud Storage which has "99.999999999%" durability as per https://clo
by dmytton 11y ago
This is S3 which isn't comparable to Google's persistent disks. S3 is equivalent to Google Cloud Storage which has "99.999999999%" durability as per https://cloud.google.com/storage/ https://cloud.google.com/storage/
To accurately compare them you'd need to look at AWS EBS: "Amazon EBS volumes are designed for an annual failure rate (AFR) of between 0.1% - 0.2%, where failure refers to a complete or partial loss of the volume, depending on the size and performance of the volume."
- idlewords 11y agoThe point isn't to compare competing cloud services, but draw attention to the fantastical nature of these durability promises.
- azurezyq 11y agoI don't think so, PD and GCS are fundamentally different products. PD is like the local disk, and you cannot assume it last forever. while GCS is durable storage and it is safer. " This outage is wholly Google's responsibility. However, we would like to take this opportunity to highlight an important reminder for our customers: GCE instances and Persistent Disks within a zone exist in a single Google datacenter and are therefore unavoidably vulnerable to datacenter-scale disasters. Customers who need maximum availability should be prepared to switch their operations to another GCE zone. For maximum durability we recommend GCE snapshots and Google Cloud Storage as resilient, geographically replicated repositories for your data. " In a cloud based infra, one still needs to know the difference. And for the ultra-low numbers, they are from mathematics I think. (# replicas, possibly cross DC/geo)