News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Summary of the Amazon S3 Service Disruption. Parent comment

Re:Summary of the Amazon S3 Service Disruption by pavel_lishin on Thursday March 02, 2017 @01:25PM (#13776707)
As I understand it, those guarantees don't mean that the service will actually stay up for the given number of 9s; it's that you'll be reimbursed monetarily if and when they go down.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Summary of the Amazon S3 Service Disruption by SilasX on Thursday March 02, 2017 @01:33PM (#13776803)
I don't think it even means that; their policy says that the reimbursement only happens when your reliability dips all the way down to three 9s:

https://aws.amazon.com/s3/sla/

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Summary of the Amazon S3 Service Disruption by dkersten on Friday March 03, 2017 @06:20AM (#13782126)
The SLA (as you linked) says three nines. The 12 nines quoted by others is durability, not uptime.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Summary of the Amazon S3 Service Disruption by HeyLaughingBoy on Thursday March 02, 2017 @01:32PM (#13776794)
Kinda the same thing, though. I mean, from my perspective there's no substantive difference between me saying "this service will stay up 99.xx% of the time and me buying insurance to pay you for the 0.xx% of the time I might fail.

The alternative is that I use the insurance to pay my legal fees when you sue me for not meeting my uptime guarantees.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Summary of the Amazon S3 Service Disruption by jstanley on Thursday March 02, 2017 @02:30PM (#13777369)
It's not the same thing. The Amazon service might only be costing you $100/mo, but if it goes down the cost to your business might be millions. They'll reimburse you the $100, not the millions.
[ Parent | on HN ]