3 ms·
> You don't need better missile defense than AWS. Well, obviously. > You don't need missile defense at all because you won't be a target. No, you don't need
by knorker 15d ago
> You don't need better missile defense than AWS.
Well, obviously.
> You don't need missile defense at all because you won't be a target.
No, you don't need it because you have offsite backups. And this is completely disconnected from whether you use AWS or DIY.
> you won't be a target.
Of missiles, maybe in this particular conflict, sure. But running a DC is not your core business, so which DC is more likely to be subject to burglary, power outages, diesel shortages (Amazon will have better negotiators than you), fire suppression, hell, private fire departments if needed, etc…
Was missiles or copper thieves the biggest threat, even there, in 2020? Would AWS or every small company be better at protecting against the latter?
- culi 15d agoHaving offsite backups is great. Not hosting your infrastructure on a military contractor in Saudi Arabia is even better.
- knorker 14d agoI feel like this is hindsight bias, and in a different scenario you'd be saying "not hosting your infrastructure in a DC without AWS level diesel backup contracts is even better". Which I already said, and you ignored. Anyway, it's all moot, because the military will now also spread out. You can go with "Joe's pizza and cloud services", hoping there aren't enough military workloads there, but where are you more likely to have an outage?