S3 does more than 3x replica durability, as well, they use a form of erasure coding. They can lose several hard drives/servers/racks before your data becomes a

S3 does more than 3x replica durability, as well, they use a form of erasure coding. They can lose several hard drives/servers/racks before your data becomes at risk, and have sufficient spare capacity to very quickly reproduce any missing shards before things become a problem. That said, S3 seems like a really odd fit for their workload, plus their dependency on lifecycle rules seems utterly bizarre. > Storage was a secondary tax. Even when processing finished in ~2 s, Lifecycle deletes meant paying for ~24 h of storage. They decided not to implement the deletion logic in their service, so they'd just leave files sitting around for hours instead needlessly paying that storage cost? I wonder how much money they'd have saved if they just added that deletion logic.