undefined

points

[-]

I was unaware that Amazon even sold single AZ S3. 20% discount. Doesn't seem worth it. By the time I commit to purchasing S3 space, it has to be important data.

I get that S3 is convenient and reasonably performant, but it is not cheap at all.

by kevml11 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

That’s simply not true. I use S3 (well GCS mostly) for data that I wouldn’t be upset if it’s lost. And I pay the zonal discount for it.

by londons_explore10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Google internally has lots of possible redundancy levels for data.

They don't sell any of the lower and less reliable levels to the public, I suspect simply because the reputational damage from losing user data is so bad, and the news will take no notice of the fact the user got a discount for less reliable storage.

by kccqzy7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Most of Google's customers wouldn't know how to choose anyways, if these were exposed. My memory was quite hazy but I recall having a discussion with my colleague on choosing which Reed–Solomon code for our Colossus files, and apparently the choice was down to RS(8,3) or RS(9,3). I don't think even as Googlers we really had enough information to make an informed choice. Comparatively it was much easier to decide which cells to use for multi-location replication in Placer.

by mitxela10 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

You call it "discount" but it's a 20% discount on a 10x inflated price, so it's an 8x inflated price

by jamesfinlayson8 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Yeah agreed - any ephemeral stuff I need is generally in DynamoDB - S3 (and database) are for permanent storage.

by cheeze10 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Single AZ S3 has other benefits. The point isn't the price, it's that it's _highly performant_ since you can keep all of your reads in the same AZ

by cyberax8 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

It's a great service for large caches. For example, we process a lot of imagery that we download from third-party providers. We save a lot of latency by storing the data in a single-AZ S3.

If it dies, we will just have to re-download the data.

by deathanatos9 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> EBS data data (sic) is unrecoverable, and that's what's reported.

I don't see where this is reported? TFA does not mention EBS. In fact, TFA seems to be nigh content-free, beyond "AWS (allegedly, and is uncited) says they cannot restore some data."

> The article does not tell us what products were impacted.

… right … which conflicts with EBS being what's reported …

(I would agree with your point that if EBS, or some AZ-level data was lost, then, yeah, that's the contract.)