4 ms·

>Cloud solutions even with single AZ should not loss data. You mean you think all cloud db solutions should implement replication for you? There aren't very ma

>Cloud solutions even with single AZ should not loss data. You mean you think all cloud db solutions should implement replication for you? There aren't very many backup solutions that never lose any data.

akhkharu 14y ago
No, I understand that replication is the double cost. I meant cloud solution should not have storage failures which causes data loss.
- kiallmacinnes 14y ago
  I disagree. Amazon simply gave you the choice over what level of reliability you require. Would you have preferred they only offered Multi-AZ databases? (and in the process doubled your development, staging and QA environment costs..)
- nevinera 14y ago
  And google should give us all ponies. Would you mind defending your expectation that other people and companies will give you extra services for free? Amazon has been very clear on the expected failure rate of ebs volumes and the attendant rds failures. If you want data safety, multi-az deployment offers it.
dspillett 14y ago
A lot of people do (incorrectly) assume this sort of thing, even in cases when it would only take cursory understanding/research to spot the limitations a given service has and where it might fail in a disaster recovery situation. No matter how good you think a given "cloud" solution is, no matter how much too big to fail you thing the company responsible is, you should make use of the redundancy options they provide and make sure you have reasonable backups elsewhere too (local to you or on another completely separate remote service). This is what made me dismiss Google's App Engine when it first turned up (I've not looked for some time, they may have addressed this concern long ago): there was no easy way to backup all your data to another location/service and the not-so-easy ways would probably all end up costing a fair bit in bandwidth charges.
seanp2k2 14y ago
This kinda highlights the problem with "cloud"...many people, even engineers, don't really understand what they're getting into. At least with a single server, you know what you're getting, and you have only yourself to blame if you didn't plan for a typical, known, documented failure mode.
acdha 14y ago
… and magically do it at no extra charge, too. Some learning experiences are in order.

akhkharu 14y ago

No, I understand that replication is the double cost. I meant cloud solution should not have storage failures which causes data loss.

kiallmacinnes 14y ago
I disagree. Amazon simply gave you the choice over what level of reliability you require. Would you have preferred they only offered Multi-AZ databases? (and in the process doubled your development, staging and QA environment costs..)
nevinera 14y ago
And google should give us all ponies. Would you mind defending your expectation that other people and companies will give you extra services for free? Amazon has been very clear on the expected failure rate of ebs volumes and the attendant rds failures. If you want data safety, multi-az deployment offers it.

dspillett 14y ago

A lot of people do (incorrectly) assume this sort of thing, even in cases when it would only take cursory understanding/research to spot the limitations a given service has and where it might fail in a disaster recovery situation. No matter how good you think a given "cloud" solution is, no matter how much too big to fail you thing the company responsible is, you should make use of the redundancy options they provide and make sure you have reasonable backups elsewhere too (local to you or on another completely separate remote service). This is what made me dismiss Google's App Engine when it first turned up (I've not looked for some time, they may have addressed this concern long ago): there was no easy way to backup all your data to another location/service and the not-so-easy ways would probably all end up costing a fair bit in bandwidth charges.

seanp2k2 14y ago

This kinda highlights the problem with "cloud"...many people, even engineers, don't really understand what they're getting into. At least with a single server, you know what you're getting, and you have only yourself to blame if you didn't plan for a typical, known, documented failure mode.

acdha 14y ago

… and magically do it at no extra charge, too. Some learning experiences are in order.