Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How One Drunk Driver Sent My Company To the Cloud

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the agent-of-change dept.

Cloud 290

snydeq writes "Andrew Oliver offers further proof that drunk driving and on-site servers don't mix. Oliver, who had earlier announced a New Year's resolution to go all-in on cloud services, had that business strategy expedited when a drunk driver, fleeing a hit-and-run, drove his SUV directly into the beauty shop next door to his company's main offices. 'Our servers were down for eight hours, and various services were intermittent for at least 12 hours. Had things been worse, we could have lost everything. Like our customers, we needed HA and DR. Moreover, we thought, maybe our critical services like email, our website, and Jira should be in a real data center. This made going all-cloud a top priority for us rather than "when we get to it."' Oliver writes, detailing his company's resultant hurry-up migration plan to 100 percent cloud services."

cancel ×

290 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

For all the drunks out there! (4, Funny)

Linux User 33 (2988621) | about a year ago | (#44325517)

I've been drunk the previous two weeks and it's been awesome!

Re:For all the drunks out there! (1, Informative)

Linux User 33 (2988621) | about a year ago | (#44325565)

Who modded this offtopic? It's right on topic!

Re:For all the drunks out there! (1)

jovius (974690) | about a year ago | (#44325923)

Have you considered sending your brain to the cloud?

Re: For all the drunks out there! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44326101)

Fake story. Obviously marketing hype for cloud services fad. Reminds me of Y2K

why cloud? (5, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44325531)

or is it just the name for all datacenter hosted servers now? (trick question.. it is).

Re:why cloud? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325559)

And what happens when a drunk driver smashes into them? (or his communications are cut?)

Re:why cloud? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44326233)

Indeed, happened to Rackspace:

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2007/11/13/truck-crash-knocks-rackspace-offline/

(Also lol, Web 2.0, blogosphere. Ah 2007...)

Re: why cloud? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325569)

It's the latest buzz word. I'm sure if this had happened 100 years ago he'd be talking about moving everything to a building with electricity.

He should have had his DR Plan in place rather than scrambling after his outage. I guess the cloud is where you go when your business forgot its umbrella.

Re:why cloud? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325601)

or is it just the name for all datacenter hosted servers now? (trick question.. it is).

Your Datacenter + Your HA/DR site = You control where data is replicated.

Your data + Someone's cheap cloud service = You not having a damn clue when/where your data is replicated.

It all depends on how critical you think your customer data is, and how much legal control you need.

And a drunk driver should not be the damn justification line for HA/DR. Common fucking sense should. Mr. Oliver should have used some of that, and New Years Eve was over 7 fucking months ago. Procrastination kills, and my sympathy wanes.

Re:why cloud? (5, Informative)

Stormthirst (66538) | about a year ago | (#44325859)

And worse if it's hosted in the States (which most of them are), the NSA has access to all your company data too.

Re:why cloud? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44326139)

It is even worse than that.
If you are hosted with ANY company that trades in the USofA then the NSA can have all your data. US Laws mean that to continue operating in the US, all companies must bend over and take a long one where it hurts when they are asked for YOUR data.
So even if your 'cloud' is hosted here in Blighty if the company is Amerian or has a base in the US the NSA can still come a calling and there is nothing you can do about it.
 

Re:why cloud? (1)

cristiroma (606375) | about a year ago | (#44326235)

They did mention that they're only a multi-million dollar operation, not multi-billion, so why invest in a data center of your own? When you can keep the servers in the back-alley for peanuts. I'm sure that hosting the email on GMail is top privacy.
I just wonder, what their clients have to say about that?

Re:why cloud? (5, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | about a year ago | (#44325767)

Yep, and it works vice versa too. What if your "cloud" data centre suffers downtime, what if your connection to it suffers downtime? Suddenly your staff can't do any work because you have nothing local anymore.

Article sounds like a cloud services sales pitch tbh.

agreed. double up! (5, Insightful)

leuk_he (194174) | about a year ago | (#44325797)

Yup. It is all fancy way to tell services are not in a local closet, but in a specialized center.

It all seems fancy, until you hit downtime, and your SLA happens to be "best effort" and the response time is nothing more than someon looked at it within a certain time. You will never get a sla that returns money for the lost productivity.

You will still have to figure out how to get your backups regularly out of the cloud, and retreive the data if the cloud operator stops. You will have to provide a fast internet link, or maybe even a double link, since if one provider fails, it might be cheaper to have a second provider instead of having one with a expensive business SLA.

Stating "put it in the cloud"sounds simple, but a lot of details are really important. Notice how the Tarticle is a consulting firm in such things? and even they hoose to do in inhouse for quite some time?

Re:agreed. double up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44326183)

Yes. Placing things in the cloud is for some reason marketed as an improvement of quality. It could be, but only if your don't know how to roll the services yourself.
What you do get is efficiency. If data isn't your thing then it makes sense to let someone else specialize in it and deal with redundancy and load distribution and all that stuff since they can pretty much roll it once and use it for many customers.
If it is critical for your business then you'd better make sure that you have the knowledge in house and then you might as well roll your own.
If you outsource critical parts of your business then you are retarded because everything it takes for the competitor to get rid of you then is to outbid you at the company that really runs your business.

Re:agreed. double up! (3, Insightful)

foniksonik (573572) | about a year ago | (#44326243)

Here's a list of things "in the cloud".

Electricity
Phone service
Banking
Accounting
Credit card acceptance
Water
Gas
Security / Alarm
Internet service

No I'm not being facetious.

Look at that list. Which ones are not critical to your business operations. Having access to your data is just another item on the list and its likely that its not the most important.

Re:why cloud? (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a year ago | (#44326207)

One of my old office's clients had to go to dual ISPs after the switch to the Magic Cloud (tm). Otherwise, a brief Internet outage would grind the entire office to a halt. They now have their primary fiber connection, and then a secondary DSL connection that will automatically kick in when the fiber is offline (which is, like, once a week. Agh.)

Re:why cloud? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325779)

The "logic" seems to be:
If we lost control of the security/secrecy our assets at our place ONCE, put it in a place where its security and secrecy is ALWAYS out of our control.
But never ever learn anything about good data center or server room design.(What the hell kind of place is that, where you can drive straight through to the most secure back-office room of your company?? No fences? No brick walls? Nothing?? Because *I think* there might be their problem...)

Because OMGCLOUDXORZ!!!111one(lim (x->0) ((sin x)/x))

And because this is a Slashvertisement and 100% bullshit.

Re:why cloud? (5, Insightful)

dejanc (1528235) | about a year ago | (#44325795)

I am not ashamed of making a mistake when it comes to buzzwords, but the way I see it:

- My site is hosted on a server in Acme Inc.'s facilities in New York / London / Tokyo. It's in a datacenter.
- My site is hosted by Web2.0 Inc. I have no idea where it is, but I am hoping they are doing some smart load balancing and backups for me. It's in the cloud

Re:why cloud? (5, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44325981)

- My site is hosted on a server in Acme Inc.'s facilities in New York / London / Tokyo. It's in a datacenter.

Or so they tell you.

Still, no reason not to trust them. Sure, they've had some bad reviews from that one guy in Arizona or somewhere, but I've been very happy with their giant catapults.

Re:why cloud? (1)

necro81 (917438) | about a year ago | (#44326201)

Damn - where are my mod points today? Well played, sir!

SADD (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325533)

Servers Against Drunk Drivers

Re:SADD (0)

dcw3 (649211) | about a year ago | (#44325703)

I prefer DAMM...Drunks Against Mad Mothers

Oh the irony! does nobody remember (5, Informative)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about a year ago | (#44325821)

Amazon Cloud Service Hit By Car Crash [techweekeurope.co.uk]

One of Amazon’s EC2 cloud computing data centres was knocked offline after it failed to cope with a power outage caused by a car crash

Re:Oh the irony! does nobody remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325877)

Thank god for multiple availability zones.

Re:Oh the irony! does nobody remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325941)

Slashdot coverage of the incident: Car Hits Utility Pole, Takes Out EC2 Datacenter [slashdot.org]

Yes yes, beat the drum for cloud services (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325537)

Google, Amazon and Microsoft can't be trusted with your data, but it's better than taking the risk of having a little downtime due to a freak accident.

Re:Yes yes, beat the drum for cloud services (5, Insightful)

dcw3 (649211) | about a year ago | (#44325715)

And besides, if you've shared your data with some company, the government no longer considers it your private data.

Re:Yes yes, beat the drum for cloud services (2)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year ago | (#44325959)

Google, Amazon and Microsoft can't be trusted with your data, but it's better than taking the risk of having a little downtime due to a freak accident.

Exactly what I was thinking. Part of the two (three?) pronged PR strategy to stem the hemorrhaging of international customers due to the Whistlblower Snowden revelations and subsequent fallout:

Step 1: "We are planning (only planning we dont want to rock the boat too hard), a very stern letter to the feds [slashdot.org] . Even so, we only comply with the law, pinky promise. Ignore those docs Snowden released showing the contrary and our willingness to hand your cloud/email/chat/phone data over to not only 'the feds' but every private Military Industrial Complex company out there, such as Booz Allen."

Step 2: Fear! Yes make them fear if they not not using cloud servers - drunks could take out their servers OMG!

Step 3: ...?

They are fighting an uphill batter to regain trust - you would be mad or incredible ignorant to hand private information over to these companies given what they have done...

This proves that we need (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#44325539)

Self driving cars ...... but what if Google decides to use them to promote the cloud by taking out servers?

Colocation? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325549)

This story isn't remarkable is it. Man shocked when putting all eggs in one basket is a bad idea. Solution: put all eggs in another basket. DR is what colocation and failover is for. The cloud doesn't magically make you impervious to disasters.

Re:Colocation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325583)

This story isn't remarkable is it.

It's an Infoworld article. Asking for it to be remarkable is aiming a little high, isn't it?

Re:Colocation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44326033)

True, the article is mental wanking. The cloud, bringing you the mainframe of today.

Re:Colocation? (1)

Zenin (266666) | about a year ago | (#44325719)

That's the thing; Most (all?) the "cloud" providers are baking in DR. And redundancy (of everything). And load scaling. And CDN. And all at a fraction of the cost (especially upfront) of traditional hosting and management.

If you think "cloud" is just a rebranding of colocation or even managed hosting, you really have a lot of learning to do. Just because it's hyped up doesn't mean there's nothing real there. Cloud hosting is a sea change.

Re:Colocation? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#44325809)

They say they are, but I seem to recall a couple times that when Amazon went down, the whole thing went down, or enough of it what their redundancy wasn't enough to handle the increased load at the other data centers. You're better off (if possible) to just have servers in 2 unrelated data centers in different cities, and mirror data between them.

Re:Colocation? (2)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about a year ago | (#44325851)

exactly, 'cloud' isn't a new name for co-located servers. Its a new name for VPS hosting (roughly).

You could always have paid for rented physical servers that were set up for DR and HA - Rackspace in particular would sell you service to practically guarantee uptime (if not totally guarantee it), but the cost was a bit much for most people and I don't think they would do it with colocated servers.

They, and others who aren't total cheap-ass hosts, still offer some form of HA service. As always you get what you pay for.

Re:Colocation? (1)

Zenin (266666) | about a year ago | (#44326041)

That's just it, it's much more then even VPSs. Sure you can just use them as VPSs, and a lot of folks find that's the easiest first step into the cloud since it's all largely familiar. They still have "servers", they still connect the dots in the same way with the same tools and same terms.

That said, almost no one has much interest in VPSs. Not the providers, not the developers. It's all the same work (and shortcomings) as before, with a slight cost savings. That technology isn't advancing, no one really cares.

Instead the cloud has taken SOA to the next logical step. Everything is a service and all of them can be swapped in or out as needed. Send an email, transcode a media file, lookup a tax rate, whatever. They're all moving to services, tied together with cloud APIs. In that model a "web server" is just another service. What is breaking down is the idea of "a server"; The high end development taking place has gone way past the traditional idea of "a server" or "servers".

I may want a search index service (solr, etc) integrated into my site, but do I really need or care about the particulars supporting it? Not really. I want it fast, reliable, scalable, etc. All things someone else far more skilled then I in all things indexed has already figured out how to do very well. So instead of firing up a bunch of VPSs of my own to run solr, configure them all, get clustering working, worry about DR, etc. In stead of all that costly, error-prone crap I can hire a company that runs solr as a service. I'll pay for as much (or as little) as my site actually makes use of that service.

The cloud is quickly becoming an API for web development very akin to OS level APIs for local application development. It becomes a matter of gluing the features you want together to make your app, not coding each feature up almost from scratch. The web is moving far too fast to be reinventing the wheels all the time and 95% of every site is the same exact set of features and problems. Spend your time and money on the unique 5% of your product, rent the common widgets from someone who does it better already. And trust me, there's always someone who does it better then you ever will.

Re:Colocation? (2)

putaro (235078) | about a year ago | (#44326133)

Amazon is kind of broken in that way. They have "availability zones" (essentially DC's) and you need to replicate across availability zones yourself to recover from a major disaster. Big players can do that and little players usually aren't savvy enough to understand that Amazon is more hype than reality in that arena.

However, there are other players coming along who will be providing those services.

A question I have is how much money do they lose if their little DC is down and how does that relate to their cloud costs. We run our own little DC (that's Data Closet) and it has the backend for our online shop along with internals. The web server is offsite and we have offsite backups. It would probably take 2-3 days to recover from a major disaster, which would cost us a few thousand dollars in lost revenue. Our costs for our Data Closet are pretty minimal, the hardware has been paid for for years and electricity, cooling, etc. gets rolled into the basic overhead for the office anyhow. We'd certainly spend more than a few thousand dollars a year if we increased the amount of stuff we have offsite.

Re:Colocation? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about a year ago | (#44325853)

"If you think "cloud" is just a rebranding of colocation or even managed hosting, you really have a lot of learning to do."

Boy, have you ever drunk the Kool Aid and then some.

"Just because it's hyped up doesn't mean there's nothing real there. Cloud hosting is a sea change."

Remind us what happened to Azure a while back....

Re:Colocation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44326197)

Cloud is the same as Colo/VPS in the same way Protected mode is the same as Real mode or GPUs are the same as CPUs.

I'd rather be down 12 hours (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325561)

..than have my privacy violated 24-7.

Re:I'd rather be down 12 hours (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325919)

ooowww, what I'd give to be violated :-*

This sounds like pood design and planning. (1)

zippo01 (688802) | about a year ago | (#44325571)

Why would you not have critical system on a back-up power system? Generator? Something. It sounds like poor planning more then anything.

Re:This sounds like pood design and planning. (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#44325617)

Because when a car drivers over your computer, a generator isn't going to do it much good?

Re:This sounds like pood design and planning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325735)

He had his servers in the beauty shop next door?

Re:This sounds like pood design and planning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325829)

Don't be ridiculous, they were obviously in the sandwich shop next to the beauty shop. RTFA!

Bad design Cloud? (4, Insightful)

MortenMW (968289) | about a year ago | (#44325575)

If a single drunk driver is able to stop your production and that production is critical you are doing something wrong to begin with. While the cloud might (and probably will) offer better HA and DR it will not fix a bad design by itself. The article also states: " I didn't want to create my own internal IT department". I' guessing Andrew Oliver is a PHB.

Re:Bad design Cloud? (4, Insightful)

FireFury03 (653718) | about a year ago | (#44325759)

If a single drunk driver is able to stop your production and that production is critical you are doing something wrong to begin with. While the cloud might (and probably will) offer better HA and DR it will not fix a bad design by itself.

The article also states: " I didn't want to create my own internal IT department". I' guessing Andrew Oliver is a PHB.

Because cloud services have never [msdn.com] had [gigaom.com] extended [cio.co.uk] outages [informationweek.co.uk] ...

Honestly, anyone who sees cloud services as the great fix for reliability problems is an idiot, especially reliability problems caused by a once-in-a-lifetime drunk-driver incident. Most of the cloud services seem to have had their fair share of incompetence-related downtime. I wouldn't mind betting that if he'd put all his IT stuff one one of the commercial cloud platforms for the last 2 years, he would've had more downtime than he had running them in his offices.

In any case, shoving stuff in the cloud doesn't absolve you of needing a competent IT admin to handle backups and such, unless you're insane enough to trust *everything* to a cloud operator who, at the end of the day, doesn't actually give too much of a crap about one tiny customer who might've lost all their data.

Lesson not learnt (2)

Ckwop (707653) | about a year ago | (#44325593)

The issue here is that he didn't have adequate disaster recovery procedures and policies.

The standard solution to this sort of problem is that you have a backup system that sits off site ready to take the load should something happen to primary. This backup system should be located in another data center, with a different ISP etc.

Moving to the cloud doesn't solve this, per se, if you move all your infrastructure to say Amazon you're still beholden to that company and its internal procedures. A system administration on their part could easily render you down for many hours.

The lesson hasn't been learnt.

Re:Lesson not learnt (5, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#44325681)

Moving to the cloud doesn't solve this, per se, if you move all your infrastructure to say Amazon you're still beholden to that company and its internal procedures. A system administration on their part could easily render you down for many hours.

A data loss on their part could render you down permanently; Do you have a SLA? Do you have proof that your cloud vendors have DR solutions?

What is your action plan if your leased-line WAN goes down, and your internet service provider tells you that it will be 48 to 72 hours to resolve? May be a fiber cut, or worse. Drunk drivers can take down networks and POPs too.

Re:Lesson not learnt (3, Insightful)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year ago | (#44325711)

What is your action plan if your leased-line WAN goes down, and your internet service provider tells you that it will be 48 to 72 hours to resolve? May be a fiber cut, or worse. Drunk drivers can take down networks and POPs too.

When your complete IT is based on SaaS, just send everyone home and let them work from home. All the tools they need are "in the cloud" (or however plain old internet is called today)

Re:Lesson not learnt (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#44326053)

When your complete IT is based on SaaS, just send everyone home and let them work from home. All the tools they need are "in the cloud"

That requires prior planning, and probably requires you to pay for your workers' internet connections or reimburse some portion of their fees.... Your workers might not otherwise have the appropriate connectivity to do this. It also won't work, if the network affecting issue also takes out your workers' home connectivity and effects multiple ISPs in the area -- the issue may be more widespread than the business' link.

Your CRM being SaaS does no good; if your CSR doesn't have an office at home, and a POTS line that you can redirect customer calls to.

Re:Lesson not learnt (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year ago | (#44326223)

Yes, but how likely is that?

If the problem takes down multiple ISP, it would break your datacenter too if you connected to those ISPs. Even if you plan redundant ISP connections for your datacenter, you'll probably pick 2-4 different ones. Chances are much higher, that the ISPs in your employees homes are much more diverse and it would take a much larger outage to take down ALL of the ISPs your people subscribed to, than it takes to take out those 2 that connect your datacenter.

The same is true for the regional extent. It is unlikely that all of your employees live so close to your datacenter, that everyone would be effected even if a local event disconnects customers across all providers.

And don't forget that we're talking about temporary emergencys here. Keeping up 50% service quality after a deasaster might keep your losses to a minimum, so have those 3 people who don't have internet fast enough to use a webapp in their homes cleaning up the debris of your office. Someone has to do that too.

A well planned, bigger emergency plan of course will help you to keep up 100% of your services, but will cost you much more than subsidizing your employees internet connection - just in case of.

"The cloud" allows you to spread out your operations geographically in case of an emergency. That is included in the cloud concept and the most efficient emergency plan you can get.

Re:Lesson not learnt (1)

putaro (235078) | about a year ago | (#44326195)

Ummmm...yeah. I guess you don't need phones, what was on people's desks, etc. That's a nice fantasy but if you were using the office there's probably stuff in it that you need besides the IT stuff.

Re:Lesson not learnt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325783)

Agreed - just because you move most of your infrastructure to a third party datacentre, doesn't mean you can't get away without investing in redundant and much more bandwidth capable network connectivity, and have a hot site.
As a veteran of the industry, I remember the last time there was a "cloud" push. It seems to be very cyclical in nature, maybe down to alternating long term and short term savings CIOs.
All I can say is: wait til you have downtime or data loss. It's not a matter of IF but WHEN. Then, see how easy it is to do any clawback on the contract, and you'll see how determined most providers are to keep your money.
Guess what - even the big businesses can't be bothered with the hassle and just let it ride.Most don't even move to another provider unless its really bad, as it takes even more time and money and downtime to transfer.

Re:Lesson not learnt (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year ago | (#44325697)

The standard solution to this sort of problem is that you have a backup system that sits off site ready to take the load should something happen to primary. This backup system should be located in another data center, with a different ISP etc.

Which is the right thing to do, but very costly. There is a wide range of businesses that are way to small for their own datacenter, let alone two of them, but too big to keep all their business documents on the boss' PC and backup on a USB-HD in his home.

Inbetween these, this is where such services makes sense.

Re:Lesson not learnt (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325701)

From a legal point of view, it makes perfect sense.
When the NSA wants access to their data, they'll just go to Amazon for it, and when their clients find out, they'll be able to honestly say they knew nothing about it.

Re:Lesson not learnt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325827)

I really, really, wonder how much the anti-cloud posters on Slashdot really understand about traditional data centers.

Guess what: even if you purchase floor space in a data center, have your own staff rack the hardware and lovingly tend it, a system administration error on the part of your network transit provider, or a mistake on the part of the sparks who are providing power to your lovingly tended servers, will also render you down for many hours.

I honestly can't wrap my head around people like you who think that the cloud is a dangerous place where a sysadmin is just waiting to delete all your data, but data centers are all perfectly equipped to handle a zombie apocalypse and only staffed by the most skilled staff ever to grace a rack of computers. Because that just isn't the reality of the situation.

Re:Lesson not learnt (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325913)

So you're saying that when people say moved their stuff "into the cloud", they are actually redundant systems across multiple providers? E.g. both Amazon and Azure? I've never heard of anyone doing that.
That is the difference, that when it's "cloud" people suddenly think that putting all eggs into one basket is a good idea, who hosts their critical infrastructure at a single traditional provide, probably even without a local backup? That insanity seems to have gotten a huge boost due to "the cloud".

False Dichotomy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325609)

Now all you have to do is wait for some drunkard to trip over a power cable in whatever cloud provider you're with and wait for them to realise it because _you have no control over it_.

Hosting 101: Disaster recovery.
Hosting 102: Would you rather the NSA back up your data from the cloud?

Common Sense 101: The cloud ultimately doesn't work.

Re:False Dichotomy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325749)

Hosting 102: Would you rather the NSA back up your data from the cloud?

I hear they have excellent backup. However their restore is lacking. :-)

Obligatory XKCD (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325611)

https://xkcd.com/908

Re:Obligatory XKCD (1)

Antiocheian (859870) | about a year ago | (#44325649)

Why s ?

Re:Obligatory XKCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325993)

Why not?

Had things been worse (2)

solkanar (946999) | about a year ago | (#44325623)

Someone would have been injured or killed.

Re:Had things been worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44326061)

Someone would have been injured or killed.

hopefully the drunk driver was injured and then killed

you don't know who has access to _your_ data (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325637)

'In the cloud' is a nice hype. But you have _NO_ control about where your data is located (backup-up) and/or who has access to your data. From business standpoint it is a tricky solution.

Re:you don't know who has access to _your_ data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44326069)

'In the cloud' is a nice hype. But you have _NO_ control about where your data is located (backup-up) and/or who has access to your data. From business standpoint it is a tricky solution.

there's this thing called "encryption". people who don't know fuck-all about it (PHBs and such) like to call it "scrambling" for some stupid reason.

but this "encryption" thing, maybe you have heard of it? it is how you solve these problems.

Hybrid Cloud Solutions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325669)

Hybrid Cloud Solutions are the way for those serious about HA but aren't insane enough to let it be run by someone else completely. You allow for better availability in the event your own cloud fails as you can shift to a provider's cloud during downtime but you have the control and standards of having it in-house. For all the problems with clouds, when someone drives car right through your server room/datacentre, at those particular moments, you're willing to let them slide to get back up and running for the short term.

And then reality hit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325689)

and then, reality hit when a drunk driver ran into the building holding your 'cloud'.

clarification (1)

nimbius (983462) | about a year ago | (#44325695)

this isnt a justification to go 'to the cloud.' its a cautionary tale on the merits of redundant infrastructure. in the grande tradition of slashdot car analogies: what you did was the equivalent of buying a maserati after your car was in the shop instead of taking the bus.
Amazon and friends still have regular service outages. these in fact may exceed your yearly downtime depending on how good an admin you are. the only difference is instead of a drunk driver you're held hostage by a provider that has no accountability when it comes to your uptime.

If your country hadn't been so prone to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325717)

...use drywalling FOR EVERYTHING in construction, then there is a good chance this wouldn't have happened. Seriously. You guys use it even for outer walls in private homes. Good grief.

Re:If your country hadn't been so prone to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325777)

Locked door? No problem with a chainsaw...

Please stop this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325733)

Why is this a story? Why?

Re:Please stop this (1)

pjtp (533932) | about a year ago | (#44325871)

Because it's about the cloud silly.

Wrong Solution (1)

twistedcubic (577194) | about a year ago | (#44325745)

Now, if a drunk driver runs into the "cloud" datacenter, what will you do? Go to the heavens?

Re:Wrong Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325801)

By then we'll be back in the "in-house" part of the cycle, and everyone will be raving about how all employees should be hosting their own mail server at home.

move to offsite troublesome (1)

martin (1336) | about a year ago | (#44325835)

Seems the main problem here (as already noted by others) was a lack of DR facility not moving to the cloud. But this is the same for many SMB's, requirements for a decent internet connection (not in the costs and quite a bit) and you STILL need a DR solution for alot of the stuff. Googles and others have suffered outages.

Also they've struggled with the online versions of the accounts and expenses system, just because it's a SaaS solution doesn't mean it any good!

Also moving from internal BIND to GoDaddy for DNS - seriously.....

100 percent cloud services? (2)

dgharmon (2564621) | about a year ago | (#44325837)

Didn't this cloud used to be known as hosted services, the only difference being that your server is now some VM running on shared hardware and you still have to hire someone to configure/install and upgrade your computing infrastructure.

so what happens (4, Insightful)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#44325841)

What happens when a 'drunken' MBA cancels the service. Or a drunken admin deprovisions the wrong servers?

Re:so what happens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44326071)

thank you ! thank you ! you just nailed it !!!

It's also a big risk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325883)

By putting your data in someone else's hands you are also opening your self up to major security breaches if you are dealing with PII. Example, the company I work for stored PII, they have a website, and on that site, they also have their DB...don't ask, it was developed and implemented long before I got the job. I argued that they should never have a DB with PII on the same machine as their web server...they looked at me like I was stupid...so I just plodded along...well the company we got our hosting from decided one day to remove all the IPSec filters that were acting as a firewall (again don't ask not my implementation) when they did some changes to their VM infrastructure...well lo and behold, our DB was exposed to the internet for about a month before anyone noticed...not only do you have to deal with possible downtime from failures at your provider, but you also have to deal with their stupidity and random configuration changes without your approval...

HA and DR? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325939)

Could someone please explain what this means?

Re:HA and DR? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44326105)

Could someone please explain what this means?

It means you should use Google before asking stupid questions you could easily answer yourself in less time than it takes to make a Slashdot post.

Re:HA and DR? (1)

dltaylor (7510) | about a year ago | (#44326205)

If your vanity web site will cost you a couple of hours to put back together and an "is your site down" phone call from your cousin when your neighbor drops a tree limb on your backyard server shed, you probably don't need "High Availability", but you should still back up the data and configuration of the server regularly and store the copies at your mother-in-law's house so you have "Data Redundancy".

If your web site being down costs you USD$1000/hour in sales, call me for a consultation, please. Meanwhile, you need to spend some money (commensurate with the lost sales) on a fallback server, the network infrastructure (redundant network providers, for example) to activate it, and real-time update a redundant data set for it to use (and, while it is running, another data set somewhere ELSE) AND IT support (for example, TESTING the fail-over, and verifying that your backups ((you ARE doing backups, right?)) can be usably restored).

The OP is considered a fool because he had only a single instance of apparently critical infrastructure and now fantasizes that adding a buzzword will somehow magically prevent any future down time and/or data loss.

Nothing to see here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44325949)

RTFA... He wanted to go cloud before the car hit the building. Seriously? the car didn't move his business to the cloud. He just didn't want to create his own internal IT department

Re:Nothing to see here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44326187)

RTFA... He wanted to go cloud before the car hit the building. Seriously? the car didn't move his business to the cloud. He just didn't want to create his own internal IT department

For a small business the overhead associated with an internal IT department might outweigh any perceived advantages. Truthfully, with the proper back-end backup between two cloud providers the potential for downtime is significantly reduced. If your services are entirely running on GNU/Linux then rsync over an encrypted communication channel offers ease of data / configuration backup. The option to bring it all in-house always remains. The infestation of "Twitter Generation" minds on /. has driven down the quality of this forum.

cross-jurisdiction mess (1)

einar2 (784078) | about a year ago | (#44325953)

Sometimes HA and DR is accomplished by having your data mirrored to various data centers. Worst case, you do not even know in which jurisdiction the data centers are. Suddenly, your data is governed by the law of another country. If you live in a police state, this might not frighten you. For some of us, the result is not normal.

Re:cross-jurisdiction mess (2)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year ago | (#44326085)

...or worse, your data may be governed by the laws of multiple countries because that "cloud" provider has servers in both the U.S. and Europe and shuttles backups across the pond (which is good from a backup standpoint, but bad from a security standpoint)

The drunk driver is in charge of your own business (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44326029)

...and what happens when there is a major data centre outage? Nearly all cloud providers have had them. In the whole time cloud providers have existed, I haven't had any downtime. Also what happens when you loose connectivity to your cloud services.
What you need is off-site redundancy in your own setup, not to delegate the responsibility to someone else. Even if you have an 100% uptime SLA, and redundant mirrors, all provided by the third party, you will probably end up having a less reliable setup. I'd be very interested in the metrics used during this decision making exercise, including your evaluation of the reliability of large cloud providers, the factoring in of the connectivity issues, and the additional bandwidth costings. Can you please post this information - you are certainly incompetent, if you don't have it.

Why the hurry? (1)

robmv (855035) | about a year ago | (#44326031)

Why the hurry? the probability of something as catastrophic like the car accident on your datacenter happening again is lower now, you can now proceed with the transition to the cloud or colocation service with the same speed than before.

wtf (3)

sacrilicious (316896) | about a year ago | (#44326043)

Like our customers, we needed HA and DR.

I guess I'm supposed to go scrambling for my acronym dictionary, but I just don't care. I'll assume he means laughter and medial attention.

Re:wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44326153)

Like our customers, we needed HA and DR.

I guess I'm supposed to go scrambling for my acronym dictionary, but I just don't care. I'll assume he means laughter and medial attention.

Yes, being an intelligent and sophisticated sort of person, I clearly care enough to write a post to complain but not nearly enough to spend less than half that time using Google to answer my own question. Anything else would be ... uncivilized.

Re:wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44326171)

Like our customers, we needed HA and DR.

I guess I'm supposed to go scrambling for my acronym dictionary, but I just don't care. I'll assume he means laughter and medial attention.

What did not occur to you: if you are so clearly uninformed about the topic, maybe your contributions would be meaningless and add nothing to the conversation anyway. *Looks at your post* Oh wait, that's exactly what happened!

At least you didn't miss an opportunity to complain about something trivial. That IS what matters right?

Re: wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44326179)

HA = Hard-ass
DR = Doctor (as you surmised)

Clearly, he needs a hard-ass doctor -- I recommend Dr. Cottle.

Computer, arch! (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44326057)

Drunk drivers have been sending things to the clouds for a hundred years.

Wait. That's not funny. :-/

All together now (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year ago | (#44326087)

Moving all your data and/or application to "the cloud" does not eliminate the need for it to be stored on and served from a physical machine.

All it does is make the server it is stored on part of some giant datacenter owned by Amazon or Rackspace or something, rather than part of some smaller data center owned by you. Oh, and that for a fee.

Works for a small enough company (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year ago | (#44326229)

I work for a company that would have been in a good place, and better off than they were, if they had gone to the cloud a year or more before they hired me. However, they hired me because they were experiencing rapid growth and part time IT support from brother of one of the owners was not longer adequate. When they hired me their IT infrastructure was about three years overdue for replacement from top to bottom. The owners wanted to go to the cloud as part of that change. As we investigated options it became obvious that we had outgrown where the cloud would have been a good solution for us (it is not just size, it is also the way that we do business). We are at a size where it is cost effective to build out our own server infrastructure, including what is needed to ensure business continuity rather than pay someone else for it. The cloud might be a viable option as the location for our business continuity redundancy, but it is not cost effective as the location for our day to day operations.

Server collocation is not the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44326239)

If you own a small storefront, I understand the need for collocation, but I don't think they need the cloud.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>