Serious question, here. Things like gigantic hurricanes flooding their data centers should factor into it, right? Risk of war destroying the data center should factor into it, right? (I mean, would you trust S3 to the same degree if all of their data centers were located in Gaza?) So why shouldn't a scenario like "all of our data centers are simultaneously destroyed as part of a worldwide nuclear conflict" factor into it?
Extreme weather events I'm sure are calculated into their factors based on location. IE: No hurricanes are going to happen in Indiana, but how are you going to predict a worldwide nuclear conflict?
Should your house insurance be higher because the world might be destroyed tomorrow by aliens? Something like this isn't quantifiable and if it happens you have way bigger things to worry about than your mp3's in S3, so minuscule events like this aren't relevant in the grand scheme of things.
My house insurance calls out certain extreme circumstances as being ineligible for coverage. Yes, including nuclear war.
I agree, it's not really quantifiable. However, Amazon lists their durability to a number of significant figures that implies they are able to quantify the risk down to that level. Yet these unquantifiable risks give every appearance of being considerably larger than Amazon's figure.
Does Amazon's figure come with a "excluding loss due to ..." clause? If so, what do they exclude?
> The Service Commitment does not apply to any unavailability, suspension or termination of Amazon S3, or any other Amazon S3 performance issues: (i) that result from a suspension described in Section 6.1 of the AWS Agreement; (ii) caused by factors outside of our reasonable control, including any force majeure event or Internet access or related problems beyond the demarcation point of Amazon S3; (iii) that result from any actions or inactions of you or any third party; (iv) that result from your equipment, software or other technology and/or third party equipment, software or other technology (other than third party equipment within our direct control); or (v) arising from our suspension and termination of your right to use Amazon S3 in accordance with the AWS Agreement (collectively, the “Amazon S3 SLA Exclusions”). If availability is impacted by factors other than those used in our calculation of the Error Rate, then we may issue a Service Credit considering such factors at our discretion.
Serious question, here. Things like gigantic hurricanes flooding their data centers should factor into it, right? Risk of war destroying the data center should factor into it, right? (I mean, would you trust S3 to the same degree if all of their data centers were located in Gaza?) So why shouldn't a scenario like "all of our data centers are simultaneously destroyed as part of a worldwide nuclear conflict" factor into it?