4 ms·
It’s designed for that level of durability, but it’s only as good as a single change or correlated set of hardware failures that can quickly change the theoreti
by laluser 2y ago
It’s designed for that level of durability, but it’s only as good as a single change or correlated set of hardware failures that can quickly change the theoretical durability model. Or even corrupting data is possible too.
- huntaub 2y agoYou're totally correct, but these products also need to be specifically designed against these failure cases (i.e. it's more than just MTTR + MTTF == durability). You (of course) can't just run deployments without validating that the durability property is satisfied throughout the change.
- laluser 2y agoYep! There’s a lot of checksum verification, carefully orchestrated deployments, hardware diversity, erasure code selection, the list goes on and on. I help run a multi-exabyte storage system - I’ve seen a few things.
- TheNewsIsHere 2y agoThis is true. While I prefer non-SaaS solutions generally, S3 is something that’s hard to cost effectively replace. I can setup an AWS account, create an S3 bucket, and have a system that can then persist at least one copy of my data to at least two data centers each within a goal of 1 second. And then layer cross-region replication if I need. It’s by no means impossible to do that yourself, but it costs a lot more in time and upfront expense.