4 ms·

Seems like they should get ready for the trademark infringement letter. Also, the math they use to get their 99.9999% durability is a bit sketchy - that 1% fai

Seems like they should get ready for the trademark infringement letter. Also, the math they use to get their 99.9999% durability is a bit sketchy - that 1% failure rate for a HDD isn't independent of its age, stress level, temperature, batch number, etc., and likely doesn't include the odds of corruption as opposed to failure. At scale you can't simply rely on your vendors' claims.

hannibal5 13y ago
They say that they store data in three separate servers in two data centers. Three HDD's must fail between two data accesses or scrubs to lose data from HDD failures. For 99.99999% durability their way of doing things is good enough to protect from HDD failures. Of course, there are other failure scenarios.
pearjuice 13y ago
>trademark infringement letter From who exactly?
- aristidb 13y ago
  Amazon.com, Inc.?
  - pearjuice 13y ago
    They don't have a trademark on "S3", but on "Amazon S3" (see: https://aws.amazon.com/trademark-guidelines/ https://aws.amazon.com/trademark-guidelines/)
    - petercooper 13y ago
      (Potential) infringement doesn't just occur upon verbatim copying of a trademark but also using terms that are similar or confusable with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusing_similarity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusing_similarity .. For reasons unrelated to the above, it didn't quite go Microsoft's way but consider the Windows vs Lindows case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows
      - pearjuice 13y ago
        Good point but I doubt such a thing will happen. S3 is a common short-term in bussiness and product names.
SamanthaGray44 13y ago
I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do... http://www.cnn13.com http://www.cnn13.com
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
hannibal5 13y ago
Amazon has trademarked names like “Amazon S3”, “AWS”, “Amazon EC2” and “EC2” but not S3 https://aws.amazon.com/trademark-guidelines/ https://aws.amazon.com/trademark-guidelines/
- aristidb 13y ago
  Doesn't Trademark law operate on the basis of possible confusion? And I definitely see that risk there. IANAL though.
  - phillmv 13y ago
    S3forme is clearly meant to refer to Amazon S3. If you had lawyers on retainer, why wouldn't you be sending them a strongly worded letter?
  - tjbiddle 13y ago
    Personally I thought 'S3for.Me' was doing something to resell Amazon S3 at first. I can definitely see how this would cause confusion.
  - S3ForMe 13y ago
    S3 means "Storage Should be Simple" in our case :-) No one has ever contacted us regarding this.
    - Keyframe 13y ago
      Of course, and amazon S3 is also storage, not Audi S3. So you might expect action from them. Play it safe.
    - ikkeikke 13y ago
      This is clearly a reference to Amazon S3. So much for having a unique name. This sucks.
    - dfritsch 13y ago
      Hmmm... Well you may want to actually put that on your website. And you probably want to be careful, since you've posted comments on here like "all the rest documentation can be found at Amazon S3 documentation site, it is basically the same with small differences" and you have "Amazon" on the sign, which is above the "fold" on my screen and pretty much the first connection I made on S3. If your entire website doesn't scream "we are just like Amazon S3" then I must be missing something.
stewars 13y ago
S3 claims 99.999999999 (eleven nines) of durability. This is not comparable S3.
- 3825 13y ago
  I can claim anything I want and refund you for the time I was offline. How will that help anyone? >We guarantee 99.9999% storage durability and 99.99% availability over a given year. Each byte is stored on three separate servers in two datacenters at the same time to achieve this level. 99.99% means you are violating your promise if you are down for 53 minutes over a given year[0]. What happens when (not if) this happens? If you would credit me back a couple of bucks and call it even, the whole four nine thing is useless. I don't understand the promise of high availability. On one hand it seems difficult to achieve and on the other hand it seems there is not much penalty for failing your promise. [0] (3.15569e7*(100-99.99)/100)/(60)
  - zwily 13y ago
    True. On the other hand, S3's record after 7 years has proved to be pretty fantastic, which is even more important.
sengstrom 13y ago
I don't think that is the main problem with that calculation. They assume to know the risk of failure over one year. Having three separate copies would allow you to estimate the risk as they do if they don't intend to monitor failures over shorter times than that (which would be a very very bad idea). Therefore the risk is actually much smaller since one would presume that they do something about it when the first hard drive fails... As noted elsewhere this is hardly the only source of potential data loss however.

hannibal5 13y ago

They say that they store data in three separate servers in two data centers. Three HDD's must fail between two data accesses or scrubs to lose data from HDD failures. For 99.99999% durability their way of doing things is good enough to protect from HDD failures. Of course, there are other failure scenarios.

pearjuice 13y ago

>trademark infringement letter From who exactly?

aristidb 13y ago
Amazon.com, Inc.?
- pearjuice 13y ago
  They don't have a trademark on "S3", but on "Amazon S3" (see: https://aws.amazon.com/trademark-guidelines/ https://aws.amazon.com/trademark-guidelines/)
  - petercooper 13y ago
    (Potential) infringement doesn't just occur upon verbatim copying of a trademark but also using terms that are similar or confusable with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusing_similarity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusing_similarity .. For reasons unrelated to the above, it didn't quite go Microsoft's way but consider the Windows vs Lindows case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows
    - pearjuice 13y ago
      Good point but I doubt such a thing will happen. S3 is a common short-term in bussiness and product names.

SamanthaGray44 13y ago

I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do... http://www.cnn13.com http://www.cnn13.com

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

hannibal5 13y ago

Amazon has trademarked names like “Amazon S3”, “AWS”, “Amazon EC2” and “EC2” but not S3 https://aws.amazon.com/trademark-guidelines/ https://aws.amazon.com/trademark-guidelines/

aristidb 13y ago
Doesn't Trademark law operate on the basis of possible confusion? And I definitely see that risk there. IANAL though.
- phillmv 13y ago
  S3forme is clearly meant to refer to Amazon S3. If you had lawyers on retainer, why wouldn't you be sending them a strongly worded letter?
- tjbiddle 13y ago
  Personally I thought 'S3for.Me' was doing something to resell Amazon S3 at first. I can definitely see how this would cause confusion.
- S3ForMe 13y ago
  S3 means "Storage Should be Simple" in our case :-) No one has ever contacted us regarding this.
  - Keyframe 13y ago
    Of course, and amazon S3 is also storage, not Audi S3. So you might expect action from them. Play it safe.
  - ikkeikke 13y ago
    This is clearly a reference to Amazon S3. So much for having a unique name. This sucks.
  - dfritsch 13y ago
    Hmmm... Well you may want to actually put that on your website. And you probably want to be careful, since you've posted comments on here like "all the rest documentation can be found at Amazon S3 documentation site, it is basically the same with small differences" and you have "Amazon" on the sign, which is above the "fold" on my screen and pretty much the first connection I made on S3. If your entire website doesn't scream "we are just like Amazon S3" then I must be missing something.

stewars 13y ago

S3 claims 99.999999999 (eleven nines) of durability. This is not comparable S3.

3825 13y ago
I can claim anything I want and refund you for the time I was offline. How will that help anyone? >We guarantee 99.9999% storage durability and 99.99% availability over a given year. Each byte is stored on three separate servers in two datacenters at the same time to achieve this level. 99.99% means you are violating your promise if you are down for 53 minutes over a given year[0]. What happens when (not if) this happens? If you would credit me back a couple of bucks and call it even, the whole four nine thing is useless. I don't understand the promise of high availability. On one hand it seems difficult to achieve and on the other hand it seems there is not much penalty for failing your promise. [0] (3.15569e7*(100-99.99)/100)/(60)
- zwily 13y ago
  True. On the other hand, S3's record after 7 years has proved to be pretty fantastic, which is even more important.

sengstrom 13y ago

I don't think that is the main problem with that calculation. They assume to know the risk of failure over one year. Having three separate copies would allow you to estimate the risk as they do if they don't intend to monitor failures over shorter times than that (which would be a very very bad idea). Therefore the risk is actually much smaller since one would presume that they do something about it when the first hard drive fails... As noted elsewhere this is hardly the only source of potential data loss however.