cloud service reliability issues

[Whisky-dave]

Just a warning about having everything in one cloud, especially for those that think the cloud is just one place where everything is secure for ever and ever.

it can rain and in the UK, it can 'piss it down' and really piss you off.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64051121

[Alan Browne]

"Workspace" cloud (where your website resides, for example) is not a
secure backup.

People with low understanding of the underpinnings of the tech they use
are most vulnerable. In the linked story they were dealing with a
provider who in turn depended on yet another co. for the actual service.
First the latter, then the former went Tango Uniform and the client
was Sierra Oscar Lima.

I'd blame the middle co. the most for selling a service and not
informing the client of the vulnerability of the data.

Legally, with companies above going out of business there is not much
enforceable one can do either.

Unless you control 100% of your applications and data, you're vulnerable.

A supplier of mine had their entire web, inventory, ordering, etc. done
by a third party co. The founders of that small co. bailed and the rest
of the co. "lost" all their web/data. Took them 2 months to get
everything sorted out. After that they insisted on their own copy of
all of the web code as well weekly backups of their data.

A current client of mine, at my suggestion, has made flat file copies of
their data for safe storage. Their specialized software service
provider is mute on data security. At least with the flat file they can
restore manually (if painfully) from the flat file (about 5000 client
records and contract details). In the meantime they will press the
supplier on data security. (This detail is not part of my contract at
all - but did come up in over-breakfast-meeting discussions).

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

[Alfred Molon]

"What is the cloud? Well, the cloud is somebody else's computer,"

--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

[nospam]

In article <yEAxL.2163097$G_96....@fx13.ams1>, Alfred Molon

<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> "What is the cloud? Well, the cloud is somebody else's computer,"

so what?

that somebody else has more resources for data integrity than you do.
their entire business model depends on it.

[David Brooks]

See https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254546074

NO CHEATING!!!

--
Kind regards,
David

[nospam]

In article <tVGxL.36385$ZhSc....@fx38.iad>, David Brooks

<Davi...@a.loss.now> wrote:

> >> "What is the cloud? Well, the cloud is somebody else's computer,"
> >
> > so what?
> >
> > that somebody else has more resources for data integrity than you do.
> > their entire business model depends on it.
>
> See https://discussions.ap

stop hijacking threads.

better yet, stop posting entirely.

[Whisky-dave]

On Tuesday, 17 January 2023 at 15:19:43 UTC, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-01-17 09:44, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > Just a warning about having everything in one cloud, especially for those that think the cloud is just one place where everything is secure for ever and ever.
> >
> > it can rain and in the UK, it can 'piss it down' and really piss you off.
> >
> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64051121
> "Workspace" cloud (where your website resides, for example) is not a
> secure backup.

What's the difference between a backup a secure backup and a reliable backup is also important to understand.

>
> People with low understanding of the underpinnings of the tech they use
> are most vulnerable.

Same with most things.

Most peolpe would need to send their digital camera off to be repaired, but most peolpe didn;t need to send their 'box brownie' off to be repairts.

> In the linked story they were dealing with a
> provider who in turn depended on yet another co. for the actual service.
> First the latter, then the former went Tango Uniform and the client
> was Sierra Oscar Lima.
>
> I'd blame the middle co. the most for selling a service and not
> informing the client of the vulnerability of the data.

It doesn't really help to find someone to blame here, unless of course it''s about compensation.

> Legally, with companies above going out of business there is not much
> enforceable one can do either.
>
> Unless you control 100% of your applications and data, you're vulnerable.

Yes always a problem with subscription or any other type of service you rely on.

[Whisky-dave]

On Tuesday, 17 January 2023 at 17:17:22 UTC, nospam wrote:
> In article <yEAxL.2163097$G_96....@fx13.ams1>, Alfred Molon
> <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "What is the cloud? Well, the cloud is somebody else's computer,"
> so what?
>
> that somebody else has more resources for data integrity than you do.

But that doesn;t mean much when it fails.

> their entire business model depends on it.

Business go broke and things go tits up.

[nospam]

In article <87206edb-d15f-406c...@googlegroups.com>,

Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > "What is the cloud? Well, the cloud is somebody else's computer,"
> > so what?
> >
> > that somebody else has more resources for data integrity than you do.
>
> But that doesn;t mean much when it fails.

anything can fail.

what you and others do not understand is that a cloud service is far
less likely to fail than anything someone can possibly do at home on
their own.

> > their entire business model depends on it.
>
> Business go broke and things go tits up.

amazon, google, apple, microsoft, dropbox and many cloud services
aren't going to go broke any time soon, certainly not in the lifetime
of anyone reading this.

in the unlikely event one decided to end their cloud services, they
would give ample warning so that users can migrate to another cloud
service *before* the shutdown.

further, it's never the only copy, so even if the cloud service was to
suddenly disappear for some mythical reason, the user can simply
migrate to a new service from other copies of their data. that might
mean having to upload it again, but that's merely an inconvenience.

try learning about how things work rather than spewing the usual
bullshit.

[Whisky-dave]

On Wednesday, 18 January 2023 at 15:08:20 UTC, nospam wrote:
> In article <87206edb-d15f-406c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "What is the cloud? Well, the cloud is somebody else's computer,"
> > > so what?
> > >
> > > that somebody else has more resources for data integrity than you do.
> >
> > But that doesn;t mean much when it fails.
> anything can fail.

yep even the 'cloud'

>
> what you and others do not understand is that a cloud service is far
> less likely to fail than anything someone can possibly do at home on
> their own.

I understand it, what I don;t understand is why people assume just because something is in the cloud
there's no concerns.

> > > their entire business model depends on it.
> >
> > Business go broke and things go tits up.
> amazon, google, apple, microsoft, dropbox and many cloud services
> aren't going to go broke any time soon, certainly not in the lifetime
> of anyone reading this.

I'd hope not, but how does that help the person in the artcle.

> in the unlikely event one decided to end their cloud services, they
> would give ample warning so that users can migrate to another cloud
> service *before* the shutdown.

Yep I'd hope so .

>
> further, it's never the only copy, so even if the cloud service was to
> suddenly disappear for some mythical reason, the user can simply
> migrate to a new service from other copies of their data. that might
> mean having to upload it again, but that's merely an inconvenience.

Of perhaps paying someone else to do it.

>
> try learning about how things work rather than spewing the usual
> bullshit.

I lknow how things work I see it at university everyday.
Maybe you have yuor head in the clouds too.

[nospam]

In article <3dd8af70-d46e-4385...@googlegroups.com>,

Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > "What is the cloud? Well, the cloud is somebody else's computer,"
> > > > so what?
> > > >
> > > > that somebody else has more resources for data integrity than you do.
> > >
> > > But that doesn;t mean much when it fails.
> > anything can fail.
>
> yep even the 'cloud'

yep. the point is the cloud is more reliable than anything someone can
do at home, by a *lot*. although anything can fail, the probability is
much lower because cloud services have massive redundancies, including
multiple geographically diverse data centers.

cloud services are less convenient for large amounts of data since
internet bandwidth is slower than usb3 or thunderbolt, but once seeded,
the difference isn't a major issue.

> > what you and others do not understand is that a cloud service is far
> > less likely to fail than anything someone can possibly do at home on
> > their own.
>
> I understand it, what I don;t understand is why people assume just because
> something is in the cloud
> there's no concerns.

nobody said that.

[Whisky-dave]

On Wednesday, 18 January 2023 at 16:51:40 UTC, nospam wrote:
> In article <3dd8af70-d46e-4385...@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "What is the cloud? Well, the cloud is somebody else's computer,"
> > > > > so what?
> > > > >
> > > > > that somebody else has more resources for data integrity than you do.
> > > >
> > > > But that doesn;t mean much when it fails.
> > > anything can fail.
> >
> > yep even the 'cloud'
> yep. the point is the cloud is more reliable than anything someone can
> do at home, by a *lot*. although anything can fail,

and something usually does. Mosytly it's the service to the cloud that is the problem.

>the probability is
> much lower because cloud services have massive redundancies, including
> multiple geographically diverse data centers.

That's all very well but it didn't help Natalie Brown .

>
> cloud services are less convenient for large amounts of data since
> internet bandwidth is slower than usb3 or thunderbolt, but once seeded,
> the difference isn't a major issue.

Was here a few weeks ago, when 100s of students are logging on in a few minutes to do their exams.
We never ahd this problem before everything went online.
But that's due to bandwidth issues , but unl;ess the users understand possible issues
and that the cloud isn;t some sort of magic white fluffy thing that will never go wrong.

Reminds me of when I assuem banks first came out, great keep your money safe,
you're never lose money if it's in the bank.

> > > what you and others do not understand is that a cloud service is far
> > > less likely to fail than anything someone can possibly do at home on
> > > their own.
> >
> > I understand it, what I don;t understand is why people assume just because
> > something is in the cloud
> > there's no concerns.
> nobody said that.

Natalie Brown didn't seem concerned that her business could be at risk when she relied soley on the 'cloud'

This is one of the worries regarding driverless cars all connected relying on cloud computing
all yuo need is a solar flare or a small asteroid that could take out a whole data centre.
Backups will exist but how long does it take to get everything back up.
swe in the UK don;t have the problems of teh storms the USA currently has
and the large outages that can last for days or weeks due to power supplies being taken out.
Not much point yuor busness sitting in teh cloud if you haven;t even the power to light your home/business.

[nospam]

In article <fe37d144-dd8b-42dc...@googlegroups.com>,

Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > yep. the point is the cloud is more reliable than anything someone can
> > do at home, by a *lot*. although anything can fail,
>
> and something usually does. Mosytly it's the service to the cloud that is
> the problem.

service outages are very rare and also brief, with no impact whatsoever
on the integrity of the data. often they're in the middle of the night
and go unnoticed.

>
> This is one of the worries regarding driverless cars all connected relying on
> cloud computing

driverless cars do not rely on cloud computing. yet another thing you
do not understand.

> all yuo need is a solar flare or a small asteroid that could take out a whole
> data centre.

that's why there are multiple geographically diverse data centers. if
one fails for *any* reason, others elsewhere on the planet will take
over and nothing is lost.

on the other hand, if the planet is destroyed, then there is a problem,
except it won't matter anymore.

> Backups will exist but how long does it take to get everything back up.

it's instant. much like a raid array.

> swe in the UK don;t have the problems of teh storms the USA currently has
> and the large outages that can last for days or weeks due to power supplies
> being taken out.
> Not much point yuor busness sitting in teh cloud if you haven;t even the power to
> light your home/business.

that has nothing to do with cloud storage.

in fact, it's actually better if someone's data is in the cloud since
they can travel to where there is power and access their data.

it's also a rare situation.

[Whisky-dave]

On Friday, 20 January 2023 at 13:52:35 UTC, nospam wrote:
> In article <fe37d144-dd8b-42dc...@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > yep. the point is the cloud is more reliable than anything someone can
> > > do at home, by a *lot*. although anything can fail,
> >
> > and something usually does. Mosytly it's the service to the cloud that is
> > the problem.
> service outages are very rare and also brief, with no impact whatsoever
> on the integrity of the data.

If you can't get to it it's worthless.

> often they're in the middle of the night

When people do backups.

> and go unnoticed.

Not by everyone. Had one at home last month, out for a couple of hpours as the 'upgraded the service'
Recived an email about it so it wasn't a suprise .

> >
> > This is one of the worries regarding driverless cars all connected relying on
> > cloud computing
> driverless cars do not rely on cloud computing. yet another thing you
> do not understand.

They rely on data generated and evaluvated in the cloud.
So yes they use cloud data and those researchiong such things do know about it even if you don;t.

https://www.nutanix.com/theforecastbynutanix/industry/how-cloud-computing-enables-the-future-of-evs


A driverless car does not work alone , it uses data updates on traffic conditions, roadworks.
But then again some claimed that driverless cares would be widespread by now.
Shows you how little those actually knew of the technology used.

> > all yuo need is a solar flare or a small asteroid that could take out a whole
> > data centre.
> that's why there are multiple geographically diverse data centers. if
> one fails for *any* reason, others elsewhere on the planet will take
> over and nothing is lost.

Data being lost is not the only problem though.
It;s getting access to it is the problem. No point in data existing if you can't get it.
It can be days or longer depending where the fault is.

>
> on the other hand, if the planet is destroyed, then there is a problem,
> except it won't matter anymore.
> > Backups will exist but how long does it take to get everything back up.
> it's instant. much like a raid array.

Depends on your network connection doesn't it.

And who yuo need top contact for Mrs Brown it was 6 hours I wouldn;t call that instant.

> > swe in the UK don;t have the problems of teh storms the USA currently has
> > and the large outages that can last for days or weeks due to power supplies
> > being taken out.
> > Not much point yuor busness sitting in teh cloud if you haven;t even the power to
> > light your home/business.
> that has nothing to do with cloud storage.

yes it does.

>
> in fact, it's actually better if someone's data is in the cloud since
> they can travel to where there is power and access their data.

I can get mt data from about 3ft away in the wardrobe.

>
> it's also a rare situation.

It'll get more common and it's not that rare anyway.
As yuo also need to take account cyber attacks.
A couple of years ago they couldn;t even use the tills in the supermarket , had to do everything by hand
even the barcode scanners weren't operaring.

[RichA]

On Tuesday, 17 January 2023 at 10:19:43 UTC-5, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-01-17 09:44, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > Just a warning about having everything in one cloud, especially for those that think the cloud is just one place where everything is secure for ever and ever.
> >
> > it can rain and in the UK, it can 'piss it down' and really piss you off.
> >
> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64051121
> "Workspace" cloud (where your website resides, for example) is not a
> secure backup.
>
> People with low understanding of the underpinnings of the tech they use
> are most vulnerable.

As we've seen multiple times, nothing online is secure.