3 ms·
> No one here is saying that you don't need geographical redundancy I mean, that's kind of what Backblaze is saying in the article, isn't it? They don't have g
by not_kurt_godel 8y ago
> No one here is saying that you don't need geographical redundancy
I mean, that's kind of what Backblaze is saying in the article, isn't it? They don't have geographical redundancy, yet there's not a single mention of that fact or the importance thereof in an entire article dedicated to teaching the unwashed masses about the limitations of mathematical theory in analyzing durability, even going so far as to say:
> somewhere around the 8th nine we start moving from practical to purely academic... it’s far more likely that...Earthquakes / floods / pests / or other events known as “Acts of God” destroy multiple data centers [emphasis my own]
Seems like a pretty serious omission given their claimed authority as "the bottom line for data durability" and being "like all the other serious cloud providers" who do have geo redundancy, don't ya think?
- mijamo 8y agoI don't think geo redundancy helps much. Your data is more likely to be corrupted by some software of the provider than some random storm, or by some common hardware used by the same provider, If you need to be safe about your data, you NEED several cloud providers in different places, with different softwares and different countries. Especially for data it is pretty easy to just back it in 2 really different places at different providers. Relying on the geo redundancy of ONE provider and having to pay for it seems a bit useless for me.
- kijin 8y agoAs mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Backblaze is working on adding another datacenter. Personally, I don't care whether a single provider has multiple datacenters or not, because I prefer to have redundancy across providers. But that's not the kind of recommendation that we're likely to see on the blog of one of those providers.