3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoThis number is still total bullshit. They could lose a few kb and be above that for centuries
- jefftk 7y agoNone 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 agoAWS lost data in Australia a few years ago due to a power outage I believe.
- anbop 7y agoon EBS, not on S3. EBS has much lower durability guarantees
- nullwasamistake 7y agoNot losing any data yet doesn't give justification for such absurd numbers
- joshuamorton 7y agoThose numbers probably aren't as absurd as you think. 16 9s is, I think 10 bytes lost per exabyte-year of data storage. There's perhaps the additional asterisk of "and we haven't suffered a catastrophic event that entirely puts us out of business". (Which is maybe only terrorist attacks). Because then you're talking about losing data only when cosmic-ray bitflips happen simultaneously in data centers on different continents, which I'd expect doesn't happen too often.
- deanCommie 7y agoIt's not about losing a few kb here and there. It's about losing entire data centers to massive natural disasters once in a century.