4 ms·
I don't remember ever seeing "obscene numbers of nines" claimed by Amazon. For S3, yes, but not EBS. The '9' character doesn't even appear once on http://aws.
by efsavage 14y ago
I don't remember ever seeing "obscene numbers of nines" claimed by Amazon. For S3, yes, but not EBS. The '9' character doesn't even appear once on http://aws.amazon.com/ebs/ http://aws.amazon.com/ebs/.
What it does say is this:
"As an example, volumes that operate with 20 GB or less of modified data since their most recent Amazon EBS snapshot can expect an annual failure rate (AFR) of between 0.1% – 0.5%, where failure refers to a complete loss of the volume.
Which to any engineer, "real" or otherwise, should be a pretty strong signal that something bad will happen.
- andrewvc 14y agoYep, I've been telling this to people for years, and they keep sticking their fingers in their ears because they think they're entitled to magic uptime by amazon. The key to EBS is frequent S3 snapshots. The reliability issues of EBS only appears to the delta since your last S3 snapshot. Still... people use EBS w/o frequent S3 backups, amazingly.
- danudey 14y agoFrequent snapshots only help you recover after a failure. RAID1 in software is a good way to prevent downtime, as well as potentially improve read speeds.
- andrewvc 14y agoNot really, according to the EBS docs, they can pull missing blocks from EBS from S3. You shouldn't have to perform a restore. The uncertainty should only apply to the delta unless I'm mistaken.