Re: Cloud Backup
Hi, Please read the doc's regarding S3 and Glacier again. The best way is to backup Linux under Amazon is to S3. This way you have immediate access to the recently backed up stuff. Once the backups are in S3 you can tell Amazon to move it to Glacier based on the names of the files in S3 and* time constraints; *lets say after two weeks when it becomes less likely you will need it. Using the S3 Amazon console, you can also specify when to delete the backups from glacier automatically a very nice feature. The cost in glacier is very low. You only pay high fees for restoring from glacier to S3 (From where you can easily recover to Linux) if you break the rules. Read the rules below: https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/pricing Quote "Glacier is designed with the expectation that retrievals are infrequent and unusual, and data will be stored for extended periods of time. You can retrieve up to 5% of your average monthly storage (pro-rated daily) for free each month. If you choose to retrieve more than this amount of data in a month, you are charged a retrieval fee starting at $0.01 per gigabyte. Learn more. In addition, there is a pro-rated charge of $0.03 per gigabyte for items deleted prior to 90 days." There is an article by some one who has comprehension problems on the Internet saying it will cost a fortune to restore, and people seem to be quoting it a lot. I have done restores and it is simply not so. I backup a few 100GB's this way every night. I have done restorations. As to reliability: (This is effectively a contract): https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/#highlights Quote: "Amazon Glacier is designed to provide average annual durability of 99.9% " If this is not good enough for you too bad. ( I do not work for Amazon) Thanks Ghiora On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2013, Steve Litt wrote about "Re: Cloud Backup": > > > If anyone was following this thread, I'll give you the latest news. > > > > > > rsync.net just announced (see > > > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5638295) that during May, they > > > sell 50 GB of quota for $60 a year. I switched to this deal, and it > > > What happens in June? I was looking at > > http://www.rsync.net/resources/faq.html#13 , and that listed the price > > before quantity discounts at $0.80/gigabyte_month, so with my 30 GB, > > I'd be paying $24/month. I like the idea of using rsync or sftp to > > upload and download my files, but $24/month is pretty steep. > > They promised the 10 cent per gigabyte per month will stay forever, if you > just *enroll* in May. > > Until this month, I've been paying them "just" 40 cents/gigabyte/month > and thought I was getting a good deal (50% discount), because I'm a free > software author :-) > > -- > Nadav Har'El| Thursday, May 16 2013, 8 Sivan > 5773 > n...@math.technion.ac.il > |- > Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |When you handle yourself, use your > head; > http://nadav.harel.org.il |when you handle others, use your > heart. > > ___ > Linux-il mailing list > Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il > http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il > -- Mark Twain - "If you don't *read* the newspaper, you're *uninformed*. If you *read* the newspaper, you're *mis*-*informed*." ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Cloud Backup
On 17/05/13 10:13, Ghiora Drori wrote: > > As to reliability: (This is effectively a contract): No, it isn't (see below). > https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/#highlights > Quote: "Amazon Glacier is designed to provide average annual > durability of 99.9% " > If this is not good enough for you too bad. > When you see someone, anyone, saying such a thing, run. As fast and as far as you can. This level of assurance is called "nine nines"(henceforth 9*9). It amounts to one thousandth of a second of downtime a year. Amazon is talking out of their asses in offering it. First, even if their service is 100% reliable, you will not get 9*9 of service. You home internet connection is not that reliable. The fiber connecting Israel to the world is not that reliable. The BGP protocol that is meant to keep the internet alive should a link go down is not that reliable. No matter what Amazon are doing, nine nines is not the SLA you will be getting. Now, you might claim that that is not Amazon's fault. THEY are providing 9*9, and it is the rest of the internet that is not reliable enough. This claim is bullshit. They are not. No single server can provide 9*9. Servers fail. Hard disks fail. Memory fails. NICs fail. Network switches fail. In order to provide a 9*9 SLA, you must be able to detect each and every one of those failures + provide an alternative path *in less than 1 millisecond*, plus assure that only one such failure happens in a year for every customer. It is not impossible to build such a system, but it will not be affordable. The very fact that Amazon is affordable means that they are not providing 9*9, nor anything even close. Just to give you a taste of how expensive such a system might be, take head of the following interesting fact. I just ran a ping between two computers connected via a crossed ethernet cable over a 1Gb/s link. The average ping time was 0.431ms. In other words, just the round-trip time (including kernel wakeup and related activities) between two computers connected over a 3 meter cable is half the time you have at your disposal to react to a downtime *per year*. At this rate, you cannot afford to ping a second time in the hope that the machine was just slightly busy, or that the packet was lost. If you do not get a reply within half a millisecond, you must act. You only have half a millisecond to set up the actual diversion. What about further away computers? From my home, pinging a server located at the server farm of the same ISP I'm connected to takes 17ms. This means I cannot react to a server downtime in less time than half that no matter what. If the server is down, it will take me no less than 8ms to even find out about it. That is, by the time I find out about the server down, I am already violating my SLA by a factor of 8. The only way to have redundancy is to be on the same segment and use specialized low-latency equipment. Since the ISP's link itself might go down, and since BGP is nowhere fast enough to recover, *the only way to provide a 9*9 service is to build a duplicate of the internet in order to do so*. I think we can all agree that Amazon did not do that, or their service would have been, by several orders of magnitude, more expensive than it is. However, supposing that money was no object, would that work? The answer is "no". The reason the answer is no is that external factors were not taken into account. A 9*9 SLA means that the chances of a problem are less than 1:10^11. The chances of a Reichter 8+ earthquake, tsunami, volcano eruption or meteorite striking are all higher than that. TLDR version: The SLA is not a contractual question. Especially when counting nines, it is a technological infrastructure question. Amazon is not providing the nine nines it seems to be promising, and is therefor lying on its SLA. > ( I do not work for Amazon) I do not work for Amazon either. I did use to run a service that was a (very humble) competitor to this one (in which we did not offer SLA for service availability at all, only for the actual data). I currently work for Akamai, for which Amazon is a competitor (though not this particular service). It should be clear that I do not speak on behalf of my employer. All opinions are my own, and only my own. Shachar ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
SLA nine ninths (was: Re: Cloud Backup)
IMO, the quote does not promise a nine nines assurance. It only says that Amazon Glacier WAS DESIGNED to provide this kind of assurance. On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 11:04 +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > On 17/05/13 10:13, Ghiora Drori wrote: > > > > > As to reliability: (This is effectively a contract): > > > No, it isn't (see below). > > https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/#highlights > > Quote: "Amazon Glacier is designed to provide average annual > > durability of 99.9% " > > > > If this is not good enough for you too bad. > > > > > When you see someone, anyone, saying such a thing, run. As fast and as > far as you can. > > This level of assurance is called "nine nines"(henceforth 9*9). It > amounts to one thousandth of a second of downtime a year. Amazon is > talking out of their asses in offering it. -- Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins. Your freedom of expression ends where my freedom of expression begins. Your freedom of religion ends where my rights for equality and accessibility begin. My own blog is at http://www.zak.co.il/tddpirate/ My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone. They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which I may be affiliated in any way. WARNING TO SPAMMERS: at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Cloud Backup
Shachar Shemesh writes: > On 17/05/13 10:13, Ghiora Drori wrote: > > https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/#highlights > Quote: "Amazon Glacier is designed to provide average annual > durability of 99.9% " > > If this is not good enough for you too bad. > > > When you see someone, anyone, saying such a thing, run. As fast and as > far as you can. > > This level of assurance is called "nine nines"(henceforth 9*9). It > amounts to one thousandth of a second of downtime a year. I think you are misreading the claim, Shachar. It is not about availablity, it is about "durability". I read it as a measure of the probability that your data will not be lost before a year passes. Disclaimer: I have never used the service and th above is my "common sense and reading comprehension" take on what is written in the above website. -- Oleg Goldshmidt | p...@goldshmidt.org ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Cloud Backup
On 17/05/13 11:43, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: > Shachar Shemesh writes: > >> On 17/05/13 10:13, Ghiora Drori wrote: >> >> https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/#highlights >> Quote: "Amazon Glacier is designed to provide average annual >> durability of 99.9% " >> >> If this is not good enough for you too bad. >> >> >> When you see someone, anyone, saying such a thing, run. As fast and as >> far as you can. >> >> This level of assurance is called "nine nines"(henceforth 9*9). It >> amounts to one thousandth of a second of downtime a year. > I think you are misreading the claim, Shachar. It is not about > availablity, it is about "durability". I read it as a measure of the > probability that your data will not be lost before a year passes. You are right that this is not about availability. The previous response was my fuse jumping because of the pure ludiciority of people claiming 9*9 availability. After reading the actual text, however, it is not clear what it is about. It is possible that this means that they will lose (on average) ten bits per Terabyte per year. If that is the case, honestly, this does not sound very good. Assuming they have several exabytes of customers data, this means that they have several actual cases of customer data lose all the time. Not a particularly good track record. Or, and this is the more likely scenario, they are talking out of their asses, and put the number in because it sounds impressive. Omer Zak wrote: > IMO, the quote does not promise a nine nines assurance. > It only says that Amazon Glacier WAS DESIGNED to provide this kind of > assurance. See my previous comment for why this is equally ludicrous. Shachar > > Disclaimer: I have never used the service and th above is my "common > sense and reading comprehension" take on what is written in the above > website. > ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Fw: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
Hi, On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Shlomi Fish wrote: > Dear Linux-IL Owner, > > I am getting these bounces sending E-mail from shlo...@shlomifish.org. > Can you please deal with them? > > I'm CCing this to Linux-IL due to lack of response. > > I am still getting these bounces. Can you please deal with them? Regards, -- Shlomi Fish > Regards, > > -- Shlomi Fish > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Shlomi Fish > Date: Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:34 PM > Subject: Fw: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender > To: shlo...@gmail.com > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 09:22:38 -0500 (CDT) > From: mailer-dae...@gateway07.websitewelcome.com (Mail Delivery System) > To: shlo...@shlomifish.org > Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender > > > This is the mail system at host gateway07.websitewelcome.com. > > I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not > be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. > > For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster. > > If you do so, please include this problem report. You can > delete your own text from the attached returned message. > >The mail system > > : lost connection with > kabab.cs.huji.ac.il[132.65.16.84] while receiving the initial server > greeting > > > -- > - > Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ > List of Networking Clients - http://shlom.in/net-clients > > I promised, I forgot, I did not keep my promise — just shoot me, and get on > with it! > > Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply . > > Final-Recipient: rfc822; linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il > Action: failed > Status: 4.4.2 > Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; lost connection with > > kabab.cs.huji.ac.il[132.65.16.84] while receiving the initial server > greeting > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Shlomi Fish > To: Linux-IL > Cc: > Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 15:22:39 +0300 > Subject: Testing > Hi all, > > I had problems sending E-mail to Linux-IL from my shlo...@shlomifish.org > address, so I am trying it now. Feel free to ignore. > > Regards, > > Shlomi Fish > > > -- > - > Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ > http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/ways_to_do_it.html > > There was one Napoleon, one George Washington, and one me! > — Big Boy Caprice in >http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dick_Tracy_%281990_film%29 > > > Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply . > > > > > -- > -- > Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ > > Electrical Engineering studies. In the Technion. Been there. Done that. > Forgot a lot. Remember too much. > > > Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply . > -- -- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Electrical Engineering studies. In the Technion. Been there. Done that. Forgot a lot. Remember too much. Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply . ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Cloud Backup
Shachar Shemesh enjoys being rude and wrong. I suggest he install new fuses. On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > On 17/05/13 11:43, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: > > Shachar Shemesh writes: > > > On 17/05/13 10:13, Ghiora Drori wrote: > > https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/#highlights > Quote: "Amazon Glacier is designed to provide average annual > durability of 99.9% " > > If this is not good enough for you too bad. > > > When you see someone, anyone, saying such a thing, run. As fast and as > far as you can. > > This level of assurance is called "nine nines"(henceforth 9*9). It > amounts to one thousandth of a second of downtime a year. > > I think you are misreading the claim, Shachar. It is not about > availablity, it is about "durability". I read it as a measure of the > probability that your data will not be lost before a year passes. > > You are right that this is not about availability. The previous response > was my fuse jumping because of the pure ludiciority of people claiming 9*9 > availability. After reading the actual text, however, it is not clear what > it is about. > > It is possible that this means that they will lose (on average) ten bits > per Terabyte per year. If that is the case, honestly, this does not sound > very good. Assuming they have several exabytes of customers data, this > means that they have several actual cases of customer data lose all the > time. Not a particularly good track record. > > Or, and this is the more likely scenario, they are talking out of their > asses, and put the number in because it sounds impressive. > > Omer Zak wrote: > > IMO, the quote does not promise a nine nines assurance. > It only says that Amazon Glacier WAS DESIGNED to provide this kind of > assurance. > > See my previous comment for why this is equally ludicrous. > > Shachar > > Disclaimer: I have never used the service and th above is my "common > sense and reading comprehension" take on what is written in the above > website. > > > > -- Mark Twain - "If you don't *read* the newspaper, you're *uninformed*. If you *read* the newspaper, you're *mis*-*informed*." ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
