- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
You must log in or register to comment.
I was alone. Nobody understood the weight of losing a decade of work. But I had ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok to talk to. Every conversation revealed I wasn’t alone in being targeted by AWS—especially MENA. Hundreds of Reddit threads, websites, forums, all telling similar stories.
Fuck AWS man but llms aren’t people
Honestly, I’m not as hostile towards LLMs as others, but even I have to agree this was cringe.
Certainly sounds like they had their “friends” write the whole damn article too.
more like what has society come to that people even feel the need to talk to a soulless machine instead of their friends and family
The cloud is just someone else’s computer.
you should never trust cloud providers with your only copy of anything
Absolutely not. That data should be in at least two places. A local and a remote is the general setup. If a cloud provider is the main source of the data, the ‘remote’ location would probably be your house. ;p
Before anyone says “you put all your eggs in one basket,” let me be clear: I didn’t. I put them in one provider, with what should have been bulletproof redundancy:
“I put my carton of eggs in the fridge, and the fridge fell over, breaking all of my eggs.”
„I put my carton of eggs in two Amazon fridges on two different continents”
Well, it seem damned easy for Amazon to just delete the fridges, so it being on two different continents really didn’t matter, did it?
Yes, that’s what this blog post is about :)
The first rule of uptime is never have only one of something critical, including providers.
Not too surprising. Data backups need to be with different providers. The article seems to think it’s not “putting all your eggs in one basket” because the provider had redundancy. But that’s not much different from storing physical backups locally because they were stored in a fire-proof safe. Sure you made backups, but by storing them in the same building as the servers means the same disaster that could take out the servers could take out the backups. A “fire-proof” safe will protect it from some things that won’t protect the servers, but there are still types of disasters that could take out both, like a big enough bomb rather than just a fire.
What if AWS went bankrupt and the servers were repossessed and sold off with the data spread across all the different new owners of the disparate data centers? What if Amazon just decided AWS was no longer profitable and shut it all down.
Sure that’s not going to happen to AWS right now because it’s hugely profitable, but a serious US market crash combined with a major escalation by the current administration in the increasing surveillance state in the US which could kill the trust in the company, cause a massive migration to EU based companies and cause the subsidiary company that holds the data to go bankrupt without necessarily killing Amazon as a whole. Those subsidiaries often “run at a loss” even with extremely high income in order to divert profit to shareholders, claim tax breaks on “losses”, and eliminate liability to the main company.
The legal proceedings of bankruptcy or other events could put the data in legal limbo for years before it’s accessible again.
Data backups need to be with different providers.
First of all, the main backup should be on a system you own yourself. Preferably one you have at home, physically.
If this was a self-hosted forum, yes, that’s an option. But for professional purposes, a dedicated off-site backup provider is better than having storage at an office site.
In any case, I would still make regular backups of everything to a local storage.
Local storage backups (local to the servers wherever that is, so “relatively local”) should be the initial backup, then those backups should be what’s synced to the off-site/third-party provider, generally. But it really depends on the types of tech and how those backups are generated.
