Re:Amazon S3 Introduces Reduced Redundancy Storage (2x vs 3x)
by braindead_in on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @02:08AM
(#1360251)
Is the price less for this? It doesn't say.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Amazon S3 Introduces Reduced Redundancy Storage (2x vs 3x)
by amock on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @02:11AM
(#1360254)
https://aws.amazon.com/s3/#pricing gives the new pricing.
Re:Amazon S3 Introduces Reduced Redundancy Storage (2x vs 3x)
by justinsb on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @02:19AM
(#1360269)
Pricing starts at 10c/GB rather than 15c/GB; hence I figured it's stored in 2 locations rather than S3's default 3 location redundancy.
Re:Amazon S3 Introduces Reduced Redundancy Storage (2x vs 3x)
by tlrobinson on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @02:43AM
(#1360307)
Does that match up with the 99.999999999% vs 99.99% durability figures? I don't know what the proper math is here.
edit: they do explicitly say "Designed to sustain the concurrent loss of data in two facilities"
Re:Amazon S3 Introduces Reduced Redundancy Storage (2x vs 3x)
by gduffy on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @03:54AM
(#1360400)
Inexact at best, but ..
P(3 locations failing) = 1-0.99999999999
P(1 location failing) = P(3 locations failing)^(1/3) = 0.000215443475
P(2 locations failing) = P(1 location failing)^2 = 0.999569159
Re:Amazon S3 Introduces Reduced Redundancy Storage (2x vs 3x)
by justinsb on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @03:50AM
(#1360398)
I think you're right ... I don't see how these figures are consistent. Maybe they're factoring in the time it takes to restore a copy, maybe 'normal redundancy' S3 is doing something clever, maybe it's simply another instance of Amazon being economical with the truth.
Re:Amazon S3 Introduces Reduced Redundancy Storage (2x vs 3x)
by dfranke on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @10:45AM
(#1361101)
There is no proper math. 99.999999999% is a very silly number. The probability of all of Amazon's datacenters being destroyed in nuclear war within the next year well exceeds 0.000000001%.