3 ms·
Related: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1334187 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1334187. Some guy was storing his data on Amazon EBS and it was all los
by johnswamps 16y ago
Related: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1334187 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1334187. Some guy was storing his data on Amazon EBS and it was all lost (not sure how EBS compares to S3 in terms of probability of data loss).
- tempblah10 16y agoTotally different story. EBS is backed by some sort of raid solution, S3 is replicated across different buildings. Kill yourself.
- timf 16y agoWerner Vogels says S3 is designed "for 99.999999999% durability." That is eleven nines. (From http://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2010/05/amazon_s3_reduced_redundancy_storage.html http://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2010/05/amazon_s3_reduce... ) EBS volumes have a theoretical "annual failure rate (AFR) of between 0.1% – 0.5%, where failure refers to a complete loss of the volume." (From http://aws.amazon.com/ebs/ http://aws.amazon.com/ebs/ ) Considering how many EBS volumes there are, that is not that low of a percentage for us to see many cases. It happens and the case at that link is not the only one. But that person didn't take the advice, he did not snapshot his EBS volumes to S3. It says it right there in the description (as well as in the user's guide): "The durability of your volume depends both on the size of your volume and the percentage of the data that has changed since your last snapshot."