3 ms·

For anyone curious about the durability of gen1 (io1) I had to look it up to compare to this new tier. “All other EBS volumes are designed to deliver 99.8% - 9

• dx034 6y ago
  Not sure how they determine that though? At that level, drive failures or single host failures (for which they have plenty of data available) won't cause issues. The risk remaining are botched deployments or config changes that bring down whole data centers or services. They are very unlikely, but can you really quantify their likelihood and expected downtime? 5 9's to me sounds mostly like marketing. In the end you still have to have disaster recovery plans if the service fails and you also need to test your DR plans regularly. That extra 9 won't really save any money here.
  • social_quotient 6y ago
    I tend to look at it in terms of how safe you can be while being lazy. We should have replication, DR , backups at various intervals, snapshots (as someone else mentioned take forever with big disks). When we have less than what we “should” I think the 9s paint a picture of how risky we are playing. Keeping in mind, less than should is always lazy. We gotta call it what it is.
  • singron 6y ago
    This is the same company that declared s3 has 11 9s of annual durability. They might have enough objects that they can verify that number now. In the ebs outage of 2011, volumes were unable to remirror after losing 1 mirror. That increased the probability of losing both mirrors, possibly reducing the durability below the designed rate. I.e. the designed rate assumes everything is working as designed.