4 ms·
Are we certain that Glacier is "geographically diverse storage."? We know that to be true for S3 Standard. Even S3 Reduced Redundancy claims "The RRS option st
by PhantomGremlin 11y ago
Are we certain that Glacier is "geographically diverse storage."?
We know that to be true for S3 Standard. Even S3 Reduced Redundancy claims "The RRS option stores objects on multiple devices across multiple facilities".
But I haven't seen Amazon make a similar diversity claim for Glacier. Perhaps it's implied by the "durability of 99.999999999% of objects" claim they make? Hard to achieve that durability in a single data center if there's a non-zero probability of something like a fire or other catastrophe.
- discodave 11y agoWhat do you mean by 'geographically diverse'? AWS has a model of 'availability zones' and regions. A region like us-east-1 means a bunch of AZs (a.k.a. datacenters) that are close to each other. S3 (and most AWS services) copies your data across multiple AZs but they are all pretty close together.
- PhantomGremlin 11y agoWhat do you mean by 'geographically diverse'? I used those words because the person I was responding to said: $84 per year per TB is ridiculous for geographically diverse storage. The interesting question to me is "how close is too close"? Here in the Pacific Northwest we've had quite a few wildfires this summer. Even if Amazon's Oregon data center isn't anywhere near a forest, there are still failure modes that can affect a widespread area. For example, fires can disrupt power lines. They can also result in mandatory evacuations of large areas. They can also cause highways to be shutdown for many days. All of which can impact multiple AZs that are "close to each other".