tazzboy Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 As I understand it, Amazon - not Amazon.com the bookselling and anything else selling business - sells virtual servers etc. to companies with the major selling point of scalability. That means heavy use and adding capacity gets charged more, but that lesser use gets charged less. The problem as I understand it is that there's a question of the degree of truth-telling by this service to their customers such as Gibson in terms of reliability and redundancy. Frankly I can understand easily how a company, especially after being flooded literally, might strongly consider such a service for data longevity - assuming that the cloud service has the redundancy claimed. But as I've written on the forums and elsewhere... I don't trust clouds as far as I can pick up and carry one, and for more reasons than stated above. m Ahh Amazon is the same one that runs Amazon.com http://aws.amazon.com/ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110421/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_amazon_outages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Ahah... Ownership wasn't noted in the pieces I read... Just the weakness of the cloud concept with insufficient redundancy - regardless that Amazon claimed sufficient for 99.5 percent of the time. I s'pose a couple-three days meets that criterion. They weren't particularly kind in at least one techie site... m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.