I am not sure if a single S3 outage pushed any big names into their own "datacenter". S3 has still the world record of reliability that you cannot challenge with your inhouse solutions. You can prove it otherwise. I would love to hear a solution that has the same durability, avabiality and scalability as S3.
For the downvoters, please just link here the proof if you disagree.
I don't see why multi/hybrid would have lower downtime. All cloud providers as far as I know, though I know mostly of AWS, already have their services in multiple data-centers and their endpoints in multiple regions. So if you make yourself use more then one of their AZs and Region, you would be just as multi as with your own data center.
Using a single cloud provider with a multiple region setup won't protect you from some issues in their networking infrastructure, as the subject of this thread supposedly shows.
Although I guess depending on how your own infrastructure is setup, even a multi cloud provider setup won't save you from a network outage like the current Google cloud one.
Hum, I'm not an expert on Google cloud, but for AWS, regions are completely independent and run their own networking infrastructure. So if you really wanted to tolerate a region infrastructure failure, you could design your app to fail over to another region. There shouldn't be any single point of failure between the regions, at least as far as I know.
Actually, I imagine that if you could go multi-regional then your self-managed solution may be directly competitive in terms of uptime. The idea that in-house can't be multi-regional is a bit old fashioned in 2019.
For several reasons, most notably: staff, build quality, standards, knowledge of building extremely reliable datacenters. Most of the people who are the most knowledgeable about datacenters also happen to be working for cloud vendors. On the top of that: software. Writing reliable software at scale is a challenge.
99.99% is for "Read Access-Geo Redundant Storage (RA-GRS)"
Their equivalent SLA is the same (99.9% for "Locally Redundant Storage (LRS), Zone Redundant Storage (ZRS), and Geo Redundant Storage (GRS) Accounts.").
How can they possibly guarantee eleven nines? Considering I’ve never heard of this company and they offer such crazy-sounding improvements over the big three, it feels like there should be a catch.
11 9s isn't uncommon. AWS S3 does 11 9s (upto 16 9s with cross region replication?) for data durability, too. AFAIK, AWS published papers about their use of formal methods to ascertain bugs from other parts of the system didn't creep in to affect durability/availability guarantees: https://blog.acolyer.org/2014/11/24/use-of-formal-methods-at...
Those numbers probably aren't as absurd as you think. 16 9s is, I think 10 bytes lost per exabyte-year of data storage.
There's perhaps the additional asterisk of "and we haven't suffered a catastrophic event that entirely puts us out of business". (Which is maybe only terrorist attacks). Because then you're talking about losing data only when cosmic-ray bitflips happen simultaneously in data centers on different continents, which I'd expect doesn't happen too often.
For the downvoters, please just link here the proof if you disagree.
Here are the S3 numbers: https://aws.amazon.com/s3/sla/