4 ms·

> For the downvoters, please just link here the proof if you disagree. https://wasabi.com/ https://wasabi.com/

• snazz 7y ago
  How can they possibly guarantee eleven nines? Considering I’ve never heard of this company and they offer such crazy-sounding improvements over the big three, it feels like there should be a catch.
  • johnmaguire2013 7y ago
    For data durability? I believe some AWS offerings also have an SLA of eleven 9's of data durability.
  • ignoramous 7y ago
    11 9s isn't uncommon. AWS S3 does 11 9s (upto 16 9s with cross region replication?) for data durability, too. AFAIK, AWS published papers about their use of formal methods to ascertain bugs from other parts of the system didn't creep in to affect durability/availability guarantees: https://blog.acolyer.org/2014/11/24/use-of-formal-methods-at-amazon-web-services/ https://blog.acolyer.org/2014/11/24/use-of-formal-methods-at... This is a pretty neat and concise read on ObjectStorage in-use at BigTech, in case you're interested: https://maisonbisson.com/post/object-storage-prior-art-and-lit-review/ https://maisonbisson.com/post/object-storage-prior-art-and-l...
    • nullwasamistake 7y ago
      You have to be kidding me. 14 9's is already microseconds a year. Surely below anybody's error bar for whether a service is down or not. 16 9's and aws should easily last as long as the great pyramids without a second worth of outage. What a joke
      • joshuamorton 7y ago
        This is for data loss. 11 9s is like 1 byte lost per terabyte-year or something, which isn't an unreasonable number.
      • agwa 7y ago
        The 16 9's are for durability, not availability. AWS is not saying S3 will never go down; they're saying it will rarely lose your data.
        • nullwasamistake 7y ago
          This number is still total bullshit. They could lose a few kb and be above that for centuries
          • jefftk 7y ago
            None of the big cloud providers have unrecoverably lost hosted data yet, despite sorting vast volumes, so this doesn't seem BS to me.
            • mentat 7y ago
              AWS lost data in Australia a few years ago due to a power outage I believe.
              • anbop 7y ago
                on EBS, not on S3. EBS has much lower durability guarantees
            • nullwasamistake 7y ago
              Not losing any data yet doesn't give justification for such absurd numbers
              • joshuamorton 7y ago
  • sascha_sl 7y ago
    11 9s of durability, barely two 9s of availability I'm sure that's okay if you do bulk processing / time-independent analysis, but don't host production assets on wasabi.
• StreamBright 7y ago
  I was asking numbers of reliability, durability and availability for a service like S3. What does wasabi has to do with that?