So basically if you can't run it anywhere other than AWS, it's no more newsworthy than talking about a COBOL compiler for an IBM mainframe; which is also equally capable of giving you 11 9's.

BTW AWS can't possibly have been delivering on 11 9's given their previous outages; 9 9's is 0.031s over a year.

Pedantic clarification incoming: 11 9's is the Durability guarantee for S3. It doesn't refer to Availability.

But for this memorydb it seems it is? Indeed not for entire AWS either way though.

No, it specifically says for 11 9s for durability in the first sentence.

You are right indeed.

Anything that helps turn RESP into more of a commodity protocol seems like a good thing in the long run. It seems to be simple enough that workloads can legitimately migrate around and users can vote with their wallets for whoever operates the most secure/available/portable(OSS) platform. By contrast SQL tech is in a far more precarious state.

In this case, that's right. I don't care about source since client-side is widely documented. And as for server-side, there's still Redis source code.

> The source code doesn't get me 11 9's

You mean four nines:

> AWS will use commercially reasonable efforts to make Amazon EC2 available for each AWS region with a Monthly Uptime Percentage of at least 99.99%, in each case during any monthly billing cycle

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

This post is about MemoryDB, not EC2, and the very first sentence of the linked paper states 11 9s durability.

Their MemoryDB page says the exact same thing:

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

Uptime and durability are not the same thing.