back to article Go forth and break it: Google pushes NASty Cloud Filestore to beta

Google has opened a beta programme offering managed file storage for apps running in its cloud platform. Instead of users provisioning their own storage and providing/obtaining file interface software for their apps, they can now directly mount Cloud Filestore volumes on GCP Compute Engine VMs. The Filestore is also integrated …

  1. ratfox

    Trying to work out comparative costs between AWS, Azure and GCP file storage will require a data scientist/spreadsheet warrior type

    I never went for dual class. Is a L9 cleric enough?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Maybe an illusionist? It might appear that there's a benefit to one over the others?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Azure "geographically redundant storage with 16 nines availability"

    Two words: the first is "bull", and the second sounds like "bit".

    If someone makes this claim like that, then it *must* be false. If this is a claim for data availability (not durability) then that's 3 nanoseconds of outage per year.

    Besides, this is a Microsoft cloud service. In one year you'll have at least one major half-day outage, and a bunch of more minor regionalised ones.

    1. Enno

      Re: Azure "geographically redundant storage with 16 nines availability"

      No, no... it says sixteen 9's... so no more than 31.536 nS of downtime per year. I'm sure there's an SLA and some sort of penalty clause. After all otherwise it's all just marketing B$.

      1. SPGoetze

        Re: Azure "geographically redundant storage with 16 nines availability"

        The Reg got it wrong, see below...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Azure "geographically redundant storage with 16 nines availability"

        I still think it's 3.16ns.

        365.24*86400*(1-.9999999999999999)*1000000000

        = 3.155673600000000000

    2. SPGoetze

      Re: Azure "geographically redundant storage with 16 nines availability"

      They didn't claim that, the Reg got it wrong...

  3. SPGoetze
    FAIL

    Durability is not availability!

    Come on, Register! Read more carefully next time, please!

    The "ridiculously" high numbers refer to DURABILITY, not availability (i.e. the probability, that the data gets LOST, not the probability that you temporarily can't access it). Quite attainable with modern storage systems... Guaranteed AVAILABILITY, according to the links you provided, is 3-4 nines, which is in line with what you would expect from a cloud service...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022