The strongest accusation I can find in this article is that: "it still isn't fool proof". To what degree do 'real applications' have to be fool proof? @josh

The strongest accusation I can find in this article is that: "it still isn't fool proof". To what degree do 'real applications' have to be fool proof? @joshwa: Thanks for point out the comments--I'm glad I read them, particularly this portion: And even if the server software were to blow a gasket and call it quits w/o any warning and w/o rebooting itself, and from a more realistic viewpoint, even if the hardware were to fail, that still leaves the remaining slave servers who are at least within a handful of bytes of being accurate at the point the master server (if, in fact, it was the master server that gave up the ghost) called it quits. In this regard I fail to see a "this isn't capable of handling real-world applications" and instead "it's possible that something bad could happen, so prepare for the worst yet hope for the best and know that, within reason, it's far more likely that the best scenario (i.e. your data layer remains persistent as it should) will be what actually takes place 99.9999999999% of the time. Yeah, so as someone using EC2 + S3 for our web enterprise, I am not really worried.