5 ms·

If we place too many restrictions on how companies should offer preview releases, they'll just stop entirely. Are you suggesting that even those comfortable ta

by libria 12y ago

If we place too many restrictions on how companies should offer preview releases, they'll just stop entirely. Are you suggesting that even those comfortable taking on risk to get a sneak peak should be forced to wait for general availability?

texthompson 12y ago
Nobody is placing restrictions, but it's understandable if people are skeptical.
- pbreit 12y ago
  Praise be the skeptical! It allows the courageous easy advantages. SLAs are almost worthless. And, really, has Google ever retired something like this (i.e., not an acquisition, not Google Reader, etc)?
  - aros 12y ago
    What do you mean by "SLAs are almost worthless?" And what do you mean by "something like this?" Google has retired plenty of products over the years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products Whether or not those fit your definition of "something like this" is up to you, I guess.
  - juliangregorian 12y ago
    Easy there Ayn Rand.
  - pbreit 12y ago
    ReplyTo aros: The two main criteria I would have are: 1) not an acquisition and 2) important development/developer service. I can't think of any and didn't see any after a cursory look at the list. I think SLAs are literally worthless since I don't think they encourage even slightly more effort in minimizing whatever issues the customer is concerned about. No one wants servers to go down, no one wants to shut down a service. That a few Google bucks might be on the line would have zero impact.
pfortuny 12y ago
No, one simply should wait for companies to offer services with guarantees for one's own data, if the data is important. Just that.
- VikingCoder 12y ago
  If they lose your data, yes, that's one thing. But if the 3 seconds becomes 6 seconds... Or the price goes up... Or they announce they're end-of-life'ing the product... Just move your data somewhere else. Sure, it'd be inconvenient (and maybe expensive) to move. So, you balance all of that out in your mind, and maybe this is the right service for you, and maybe it's not.
  - bigiain 12y ago
    I'm not even sure it'd be "expensive to move". Are people _really_ considering using this (or Glacier/rsync.net/whatever) as their _only_ copy of their data? I can't imagine looking my boss/customers in the eye and saying "We're going to have multiple terabytes of mission critical business data, and it's all going to live _only_ on AWS/Google/Cloud-service-de-jour!" If I lose my AWS Glacier stored data (or Amazon bump the prices intolerably), I'll upload it to a competitor _from my local copies_... Admittedly, I've only had to deal with storage topping out in the tens of terabytes range, so I've never needed to go beyond a dozen or two consumer-grade drives to keep a pair of rsynced copies locally - but I think that same kind of techniques scale all the way out to building your own Backblaze style storage pod if needed.
    - VikingCoder 12y ago
      In a word: yes. You're thinking about data that can't be lost, or your customers are screwed. Not all data is like that. Log files come to mind. They're _nice_ to archive for a long time, but in many businesses, they're certainly not _critical_ to archive for a long time. Intermediate files, too. You retain the original files in secured storage. But because the intermediate files are large and expensive to re-create, you keep them here in AWS.
sitkack 12y ago
think of the poor poor companies!

by libria 12y ago

texthompson 12y ago

Nobody is placing restrictions, but it's understandable if people are skeptical.

pbreit 12y ago
Praise be the skeptical! It allows the courageous easy advantages. SLAs are almost worthless. And, really, has Google ever retired something like this (i.e., not an acquisition, not Google Reader, etc)?
- aros 12y ago
  What do you mean by "SLAs are almost worthless?" And what do you mean by "something like this?" Google has retired plenty of products over the years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products Whether or not those fit your definition of "something like this" is up to you, I guess.
- juliangregorian 12y ago
  Easy there Ayn Rand.
- pbreit 12y ago
  ReplyTo aros: The two main criteria I would have are: 1) not an acquisition and 2) important development/developer service. I can't think of any and didn't see any after a cursory look at the list. I think SLAs are literally worthless since I don't think they encourage even slightly more effort in minimizing whatever issues the customer is concerned about. No one wants servers to go down, no one wants to shut down a service. That a few Google bucks might be on the line would have zero impact.

pfortuny 12y ago

No, one simply should wait for companies to offer services with guarantees for one's own data, if the data is important. Just that.

VikingCoder 12y ago
If they lose your data, yes, that's one thing. But if the 3 seconds becomes 6 seconds... Or the price goes up... Or they announce they're end-of-life'ing the product... Just move your data somewhere else. Sure, it'd be inconvenient (and maybe expensive) to move. So, you balance all of that out in your mind, and maybe this is the right service for you, and maybe it's not.
- bigiain 12y ago
  I'm not even sure it'd be "expensive to move". Are people _really_ considering using this (or Glacier/rsync.net/whatever) as their _only_ copy of their data? I can't imagine looking my boss/customers in the eye and saying "We're going to have multiple terabytes of mission critical business data, and it's all going to live _only_ on AWS/Google/Cloud-service-de-jour!" If I lose my AWS Glacier stored data (or Amazon bump the prices intolerably), I'll upload it to a competitor _from my local copies_... Admittedly, I've only had to deal with storage topping out in the tens of terabytes range, so I've never needed to go beyond a dozen or two consumer-grade drives to keep a pair of rsynced copies locally - but I think that same kind of techniques scale all the way out to building your own Backblaze style storage pod if needed.
  - VikingCoder 12y ago
    In a word: yes. You're thinking about data that can't be lost, or your customers are screwed. Not all data is like that. Log files come to mind. They're _nice_ to archive for a long time, but in many businesses, they're certainly not _critical_ to archive for a long time. Intermediate files, too. You retain the original files in secured storage. But because the intermediate files are large and expensive to re-create, you keep them here in AWS.

sitkack 12y ago

think of the poor poor companies!