Slashdot Mirror
What Happens To Data When a Cloud Provider Dies?
Lucas123 writes "When cloud storage providers shut down, as four have done in the past year, users are left wondering how they'll get their data back and whether they'll be able to migrate it directly to a new service provider. More importantly, analysts say, what guarantees do they have that the data stored offsite will be deleted after the shutdown. Currently, there is no direct way to migrate data to another provider, and there are no government rules or regulations specific to data managed by cloud storage providers."
As if people weren't losing any data when "the cloud" was called "shared hosting".
You take your chances if your hosting your data somewhere outside of your control. Unfortunately, when any company goes broke, customer concerns tend to go out the window as the major creditors swoop in to grab what value they can.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
A cloud based form of backup or duplicates can only be one leg of a system to protect data. Gotta have at least 3 legs to stand on.
The reminder that 4 services closed in one year is fair warning.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The cloud has immense uses but "trust me" is not something you ever want to here from the government or a company. Anyone that puts there assets out in the ether with no alternate location is asking for trouble.
I'd think these issues are general so far as storing your data "anywhere but here" is concerned.
Storage is cheap. Just get something like a dRobo, throw some barracuda HDs in it and you have a multi-terabyte raid array.
Just SCP your files down the net into the black box and you're all set. Question is, why aren't you doing this already?
Just leaving your files up on your host and NOT backing up to local storage is classic dumbfuckery.
For databases, most cloud users use MySQL anyway, so just use the admin tool to back up and replicate to a local server. Don't have a suitable machine for a local server? Get a mac-mini, they are rather inexpensive and come with MySQL5 pre-installed and configurable through Apple's server admin interface.
Dear Cloud entrepreneurs and VC's:
If you are wondering why businesses aren't trampling themselves to go to a public cloud, here is half your answer. The other half was the Amazon outage. A CIO does not like depending on an outside company for his uptime metric. He wants total control. If there is an outage, he wants HIS people on it reporting to HIM. He doesn't want to go back to the CEO, "the cloud provider is working on it and there is nothing I can do to make it go faster."
If clouds happen, it will mostly be private clouds under the company's control. Sure it may not have as high uptime or be more expensive, but at least it's under their control. You surrender control going to an external cloud.
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
And this is why I wont be using harddisks for anything of value. I've printed off the contents of all my storage devices on A4 sheets of paper in raw binary format, recently I've had to renovate the garage to cater.
It rains down your data, everywhere.
That information is my personal property.
It is the government that usually sorts out property issues (and contract issues). There is a VERY long history of this.
Sorry to rain on your psuedo-libertarianism parade but the government is exactly the right entity to help sort this out. This is a simple property issue.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
On shared hosting you can migrate from one service provider to the other without major pain, because there are a lot of providers offering LAMP/J2EE/ASP.net etc.
In the case of the cloud, you depend on the cloud APIs which aren't standardized and because cloud servers aren't a commodity. You can't migrate from Amazon cloud to Microsoft cloud without writing your own abstraction layer on top of proprietary cloud APIs.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In my experience, non-IT companies are falling all over themselves to move to (at the very least) hosted IT services. The true answer to this question will come out when the first major provider flames out. Think about this with a cynical eye towards the situation. CIOs and other decision makers are under immense pressure to cut costs, especially in companies where IT is not seen as a strategic investment. For every software company or non-IT company that uses IT to its advantage, there are 10x as many who use IT for file/print/email only, and see it as a cost like paying the janitor and building staff to keep the place running. Cloud providers win business by doing a shiny PowerPoint with animated graphics showing all those power-eating servers and local IT staff fading into "the cloud." At the same time, they promise the ability to get rid of your IT staff and replace the current IT spend with a monthly charge that can be completely written off as an operational expense. MBAs are seemingly taught on Day 1 that human resources are a necessary evil to be minimized, and that operational expenses are preferable to fixed asset spending. Therefore, this PowerPoint resonates with them and the decision is made.
The problems come behind the PowerPoint. Every IT problem the business had before now becomes the provider's problem, including data storage/retention, bandwidth issues, server provisioning and all that stuff. How well does it work out? Everything depends on the competence of your provider. Even with ironclad SLAs in place, (a) Really Bad Stuff can still happen that makes them null and void, and (b) SLAs are only a piece of paper guaranteeing you free service or a payment in the event of an outage.
Any business considering The Cloud needs to think of the following:
(If this sounds like the list of questions to ask when considering an outsourcing agreement, it is. Cloud is just IT outsourcing without a directly accountable staff at the provider.) Businesses who want data integrity and decent service need to realize that they have to pay for it, just like they do in a traditional outsourcing/hosting scenario. If a CIO chooses to go with the equivalent of GMail for their internal messaging, just 'cause it was cheaper than the fully-hosted, DR'd, off-site backed up, SOX-compliant managed email service, then they deserve what they get.
family guy reference
the cloud is just a new name on an old concept
Pretty much. And the increased visibility means it's now being used by people who don't understand the need for a backup.
All Bits Go To Heaven.
Cloud providers win business by doing a shiny PowerPoint with animated graphics showing all those ...The problems come behind the PowerPoint ..
But between the powerpoint and the emergence of the problems, there are bonuses for the top management. The gang has shown the powerpoint to the board and have already awarded themselves fat bonuses and have already left camp looking for their next chump. The board also does not care too much, they get paid, what 100K for six meetings in a year? and the free use of corporate guest houses, jet, club memberships and special boxes in the stadia...
The stock traders don't care either. They buy before the conference call, wait for the "guidance" from the CEO and sell a day after the call.
So who pays? The ultimate chump is the small investor and the taxpayers. The big investors would be bailed by the government.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact