Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Drive Faces Outage, Users Report [Update] (google.com)

Posted by msmash on from the outage-report dept.

Numerous Slashdot readers are reporting that they are facing issues access Google Drive, the productivity suite from the Mountain View-based company. Google's dashboard confirms that Drive is facing outage. Third-party web monitoring tool DownDetector also reports thousands of similar complaints from users. The company said, "Google Drive service has already been restored for some users, and we expect a resolution for all users in the near future. Please note this time frame is an estimate and may change. Google Drive is not loading files and results in a failures for a subset of users."

Update: 09/07 17:13 GMT: Google says it has resolved the issue.

75 comments

  1. Awww by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Google's having a cloudy day; or should I say, non-cloudy?

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Awww by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's working fine for me. If it was ever down, it wasn't for long.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Awww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was down here at work earlier, I assumed it was the web filter. Looks to be back up now (or for now).

  2. Drive Down by pdfsmail · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Confirmed,

    Went to google drive and I can see the interface, but not files, just continuously loads. Although I can access files in my Quick Access area.
    Glad I back this up locally! Hopefully I wont lose Gigs of files like the last time I had an issue with them (a couple years ago).

    1. Re:Drive Down by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Hopefully I wont lose Gigs of files like the last time I had an issue with them (a couple years ago).

      Why THE FUCK would you use a file sharing service that has lost data for you in the past? That seems kinda' insane.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:Drive Down by tomhath · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, the product is only in Beta. Go easy on him.

    3. Re:Drive Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your work should be always local. Porn files can go anywhere lol... tho pornhub and chaturbate should cover every use cases you might have lol...

    4. Re:Drive Down by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Because for many people it is just an 'sharing' product.
      Everything that is there is on the computer, too!
      And: for many people there are no alternatives anyway, hont: Chrome Book.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  3. Ouch by kristofer.vesi · · Score: 0

    So much of the websites for 99.99% uptime... I bet it isn't correct on any website. Hope my beloved Google gets it's things sorted out. Remember the time when 1 responsible women, 1 out of 5 allowed made a change in code so you could log on to any google account without password, she got arrested in an airport, since flight got delayed due the airport being run on Google Apps ^^

    1. Re:Ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope, don't remember that happening. I do remember a video on a thought experiment on what would happen if that did happen. I believe it was on the youtube channel computerphile. But never actually heard of it happening.

    2. Re:Ouch by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      99.99% uptime 365 allows for almost 9 hours every year. A full business day of work.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Ouch by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Well, my new Chromebook's uptime is... huh, it browses Drive files just fine.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    4. Re:Ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you use some calculator included in Google Drive to come up with that number?

      0.01% of 8766 hours per year = 0.8766 hours (i.e. less than one).

    5. Re: Ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope that's not true, you have to love the +1 without even checking the math. .9999 * 31500000 is about 3150 seconds or a bit less than an hour not even close to a full business day, unless I guess you work for the government then maybe yes it's about a full day of work for them.

    6. Re:Ouch by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      .9 hours

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Ouch by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 3, Funny

      Google is 10 times better than any other 99.99% uptime service, so 9 hours.

    8. Re:Ouch by msauve · · Score: 1

      It's like the Sprint commercial saying there's a 1% difference in reliability between them and Verizon. A 1% difference is over 3.6 days!

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    9. Re: Ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless I guess you work for the government then maybe yes it's about a full day of work

      I'll second that (source: "working" in government)

    10. Re:Ouch by lifeisshort · · Score: 1

      52 minutes and 56 seconds actually.

    11. Re:Ouch by kristofer.vesi · · Score: 1

      Tough I think the outage is not worldwide and may be fixed, it may only effect some accounts, my drive works fine too, no problems except the bug, what interupts shutdown... In a nutshell: don't download sync drive on windows, if you don't really need it, to get rid of the bug you need to reinstall windows. They haven't fixed it in 2+ years...

    12. Re:Ouch by thebullshitpatrol · · Score: 1

      or a small corner of Montana that 99% of the population will never go to.

      bad comparison. no points in time during your lifetime are optional.

  4. The root cause, of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is that their workforce is not diverse enough.

    1. Re:The root cause, of course... by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That could be the case. Google like to hire a large subset of like minded people.
      Someone with a different set of experience and life lessons, may had seen this problem beforehand and been able to fix it. Vs Google hiring kids who pass the IQ tests and are excited about the new and cool. Who just doesn't realize that there is always a single point of failure that needs to be addressed.

      I know at my work environment which is very diverse, they are many different approaches to problems that allows us to handle things more thoroughly.
      The young guy has fresh new ideas to problems, the older guy has experience to know where the problems are to the ideas, and can point out that this new idea was already tried. The person with more experience with dealing with politics, can determine if the idea will get past management or not. Then there is a person who will document everything.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:The root cause, of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A combination of young guys and older guys is not what I call "diverse". You need an artist, a former nurse, and a member of an African tribe in case their past experience can help them spot a bug written by a white guy faster than a second white guy can.

    3. Re:The root cause, of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too low in conscientiousness, it seems.

    4. Re:The root cause, of course... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Hhahaha funny enough the only person I know who works for Google, works in the Google Drive division and is female.

      Make of that anecdote what you will :-)

      *Kidding she's a walking genius.

    5. Re:The root cause, of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is thinking differently at Google is apparently not tolerated.

    6. Re:The root cause, of course... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Its not male vs female that is at issue. Its conservative vs liberal.

      You hire liberals to innovate, and conservatives to maintain the day to day, If you make the conservatives feel unwelcome, ostracize them, fire them if they speak out, and so on... well... even what little conservatives you have wont be performing at top efficiency even if they wanted to, and they might not want to (they might want to watch it all burn.)

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    7. Re:The root cause, of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not male vs female that is at issue. Its conservative vs liberal.

      You hire liberals to innovate, and conservatives to maintain the day to day, If you make the conservatives feel unwelcome, ostracize them, fire them if they speak out, and so on... well... even what little conservatives you have wont be performing at top efficiency even if they wanted to, and they might not want to (they might want to watch it all burn.)

      Innovate? More like break shit for no reason. Innovation implies improvement.

    8. Re:The root cause, of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Snark away, you're not getting anywhere. See it's not that someone's different life experience will help them spot a bug; it's that employing from a diverse worker pool means there's more chance that someone will have those skills."

      False. Employing workers with needed skills means there's more chance that someone will have those needed skills.

    9. Re:The root cause, of course... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Medical Doctors and Nurses are often well trained at diagnosing problems.
      The artist may be able to look at the problem with a different angle to prevent people from starting at the same line of code.
      A tribal leader would have leadership experience to direct the right people and right number to help solve the problem

      If the company hires similar people chances are they will be staring at the wrong line of code or both trying to fix it with the same approach.

      Why would a Nurse or an Artist wouldn't be a White guy?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  5. What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    My files stored locally on my external drive are also not available!

    Just kidding. Store your own damn files on your own damn hardware, fools.

    1. Re:What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Storing your own files is too last-century for the phone-raised set.

    2. Re:What a coincidence! by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 1

      Why not do both? Then if your external drive dies, or you are not at home / the office with it, or whatever... you have multiple copies of your data in multiple physical locations. That is how it should be done :)

      --
      William George
    3. Re:What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if, like a dumbass, you don't mind giving every random person in the world access to your files, because that's what you are doing when you hand them over to ANYONE else.

    4. Re:What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, it's as if there is a subset of people who think that it's impossible to have down time or lose data if you use your own hardware and backup strategy...

      It sucks when a major host goes down, because it affects many at once. That does not mean that having someone host your data for you is less safe than rolling your own. For many organizations, it's virtually guaranteed that Google or other hosts will do a better job than a roll your own solution.

    5. Re:What a coincidence! by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 1

      Anything that is sensitive should be encrypted first, of course. Depends on what you are storing.

      --
      William George
    6. Re:What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Multiple copies of data (i.e. backups) are good. Nobody is suggesting otherwise.

      But when you're not at home, you should still be accessing the data (the master copy from which the backups are made) not some replicated copy where you have to do complicated things to resolve merged changes from multiple sources. You don't need anything like Google for that. 1994 is finally here and everyone has networks and Internet access now, not just businesses.

      (Watch, some nerd will explain that he uses git for everything, even his contacts list.)

    7. Re:What a coincidence! by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      In this day and age of Big Data analytics, there is no longer any such thing as data that is not sensitive. Even the most trivial of information, combined with other trivial information, can add up to a serious intrusion.

      If you really must keep data in the cloud, it should all be encrypted (by you, not the cloud), no matter how insignificant that data may seem.

    8. Re:What a coincidence! by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      Hmmm, it's as if there is a subset of people who think that it's impossible to have down time or lose data if you use your own hardware and backup strategy...

      Of course it's not impossible. However, it's also not that hard to meet the same uptime targets as the cloud providers. Also, if it's all on your hardware, then it can be easier to recover from the problem.

      It sucks when a major host goes down, because it affects many at once.

      No. It sucks because when it happens, the users are 100% powerless to do anything about it.

      For many organizations, it's virtually guaranteed that Google or other hosts will do a better job than a roll your own solution.

      I would argue that this isn't true for any organization. A cloud host's advantage is not that they can do a better job than you, it's that they'll save you time and money. A big part of what you sacrifice for that convenience is control and the ability to correct the inevitable problems.

      Whether or not that's worth it depends on your (or your business') particular cost/benefit formula.

    9. Re:What a coincidence! by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 1

      Sure, you could keep your master copies on a home network and open ports for remote access... but even more easily you could use Google Drive, and not have to worry about potentially opening holes in your home network. Then, use Google Drive's various platform apps to keep local backups of the data on your Drive - and keep an additional periodic backup externally, so that if you accidentally change or delete something that propagates to the various local versions of Drive you can still go back and get an older copy.

      That is what I do, at least, and it has kept my data both easily accessible and secure. I also encrypt the sensitive stuff on my own before it gets put on Google Drive.

      --
      William George
    10. Re:What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's not impossible. However, it's also not that hard to meet the same uptime targets as the cloud providers. Also, if it's all on your hardware, then it can be easier to recover from the problem.

      For other major corps maybe. For small to medium size businesses? It's not as easy as you imply. Google/AWS/Azure have large amounts of redundancy built in. It's somewhere between very and extremely difficult to design and build a system such as AWS S3 which has multiple layers of storage and access redundancy baked in as well as "automagic" replication to multiple geographic locations. For most small or medium businesses? It's virtually impossible to do cost effectively.

      No. It sucks because when it happens, the users are 100% powerless to do anything about it.

      While relying on contractual obligations (rather than on hands work) of outsourced services can be frustrating, it's still far better that simply being unable to afford the type of durability provided by that outsourced service. And far better to have to wait for a contracted service to fix something than to be completely, utterly screwed because you tried to roll your own solution that failed because you lacked the expertise and/or financial capability to build something with the necessary durability.

      "The cloud" isn't some fundamental new concept. It's marketing speak for something businesses have done since the dawn of businesses: outsource things they can't do well to other businesses.

      I would argue that this isn't true for any organization. A cloud host's advantage is not that they can do a better job than you, it's that they'll save you time and money. A big part of what you sacrifice for that convenience is control and the ability to correct the inevitable problems.

      Whether or not that's worth it depends on your (or your business') particular cost/benefit formula.

      I did IT support for small businesses for several years (decades ago), and the frequency in which businesses lost critical data because the secretary never changed the tape in the tape drive but they didn't know that until the 1 hard drive in the cobbled together server stashed in the coat closet went kaput is... horrifying.

      The idea that major IT companies can't do a better job at IT than large swaths of businesses doesn't match with reality. The number of businesses in the world that do NOT have the ability to roll their own IT infrastructure cheaply and cost effectively outnumber those that do by orders of magnitude.

      And of course, in consumer land, there's really no competition between something like google drive/dropbox/etc. and what most consumers do to protect their data (which is bupkis).

    11. Re:What a coincidence! by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I don't think that we're disagreeing as much as you imply.

      For small to medium size businesses? It's not as easy as you imply.

      It depends on how many 9s you need. For most small and medium businesses, 4 or 5 nines (plus adequate backups) are more than sufficient. You can achieve that with a couple of high-quality RAIDs that are geographically separated (particularly if you park them in a third party server farm that provides things like UPS).

      It's virtually impossible to do cost effectively.

      I disagree with the "virtually impossible" part. But, ignoring that, here is where we aren't really disagreeing that much: doing this yourself (on a small scale, anyway) is clearly more expensive than farming it out. "Cost effective" is a relative term, though, which is why I mentioned "cost/benefit calculations". What's not cost effective for one business may be cost effective for another, even if the businesses are the same size.

      screwed because you tried to roll your own solution that failed because you lacked the expertise and/or financial capability to build something with the necessary durability.

      Agreed. I was not recommending that anyone do this themselves if they don't have, or can't afford, the expertise.

      I did IT support for small businesses for several years (decades ago), and the frequency in which businesses lost critical data because the secretary never changed the tape in the tape drive but they didn't know that until the 1 hard drive in the cobbled together server stashed in the coat closet went kaput is... horrifying.

      But this is not an argument against what I was saying. You are talking about businesses running their IT with a high degree of incompetency. Nothing protects against incompetency.

      And I was hardly suggesting that everyone should roll their own (I really thought I'd put enough qualifiers in to make that clear, but I guess not). What I was saying is that the notion that you can't do this yourself in a competent fashion is nonsense.

      Whether or not it's worth it to you to do this yourself is a different issue. In some cases, it is. In others, it's not. It all depends on your particular situation.

    12. Re:What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on how many 9s you need. For most small and medium businesses, 4 or 5 nines (plus adequate backups) are more than sufficient. You can achieve that with a couple of high-quality RAIDs that are geographically separated (particularly if you park them in a third party server farm that provides things like UPS).

      Hmm, back of the eyeball calculation on 2x high quality raid setups, rented space, staff to build and support, data synchronization, REAL backups (RAID is not a backup!), etc. is about 10-100x the IT budget of most of the type of small businesses I ever worked with (think small vets, small dentists, single person law firms, mom&pop retail shops, etc.). It's why they ended up with cheap servers stuffed in closets "maintained" by secretaries (20 years ago). Luckily today there are much, much better options available to them at a price they can afford.

      And, of course, if your RAID setups are in a third party server farm, you're in the same boat as people using google/aws/etc. (the only difference being virtual vs non-virtual servers). Server farm building has a network outage? You're waiting for them to fix it, just like you'd be waiting for google/aws/etc. to fix similar problems. The only difference is what marketing term is used.

      I disagree with the "virtually impossible" part. But, ignoring that, here is where we aren't really disagreeing that much: doing this yourself (on a small scale, anyway) is clearly more expensive than farming it out. "Cost effective" is a relative term, though, which is why I mentioned "cost/benefit calculations". What's not cost effective for one business may be cost effective for another, even if the businesses are the same size.

      Like I said above, a 100% on site 2-5 nines setup like you describe (plus staff to build and support it) is far beyond the financial capabilities of the vast majority of small businesses and even many medium size businesses.

      But this is not an argument against what I was saying. You are talking about businesses running their IT with a high degree of incompetency. Nothing protects against incompetency.

      Um, yes, there is something that protects against IT incompetency: paying someone who IS competent to do it for you. Like a third party hosting service that specializes in the function you are looking to accomplish.

      Relying on a third party IT infrastructure is no different than, for example, relying on a third party shipping infrastructure. The hate on "the cloud" (the actual service, not the term) for its imperfections is just as irrational as hating on FedEx/UPS/USPS for their imperfections.

      What I was saying is that the notion that you can't do this yourself in a competent fashion is nonsense.

      I never said it was impossible. I said that it's not something MOST businesses can competently do (or afford to do) themselves. Just like MOST businesses can't do their own accounting, payroll, shipping, physical security or build their own buildings, etc.

    13. Re:What a coincidence! by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      (RAID is not a backup!)

      I never said otherwise. I was talking about live reliability, not backups.

      And, of course, if your RAID setups are in a third party server farm, you're in the same boat as people using google/aws/etc.

      Not at all. If I have hardware sitting in a farm, and the farm goes down, I can still physically go there and retrieve my hard drives.

      is far beyond the financial capabilities of the vast majority of small businesses and even many medium size businesses.

      Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I manage it, and I'm not wealthy.

      The hate on "the cloud" (the actual service, not the term) for its imperfections is just as irrational as hating on FedEx/UPS/USPS for their imperfections.

      In a sense, yes. In another sense, it's understandable since cloud providers tend to sell themselves as being without such imperfections.

      I never said it was impossible.

      Then why are we debating? Since my only assertion was that it's possible and for some, the best option.

      I don't "hate" on cloud services as a concept, by the way. My problem is twofold. First, I think that the way that cloudy companies market themselves is deceptive, and this "you can't do it as well as us" line is one of the deceptive sales tactics.

      Second, I think that the way people are using the cloud is dangerous. They just ship their data off without thinking this stuff through, and then trust the companies entirely for security and reliability. Disaster looms down that path, sooner or later.

      "The cloud" is, as you noted, nothing new at all. It used to be the way all computing was done. However, everyone seems to have forgotten that there are very real tradeoffs involved. The downsides of it are not insignificant -- which is why everyone rejoiced when microcomputers reduced the need for heavy iron.

    14. Re:What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never said otherwise. I was talking about live reliability, not backups.

      Still have to account for all the needs/costs, not just one aspect (availability). This seems to be a major point of contention between us. You want to gloss over all the important details of putting together a system with 99.99% availability and 99.999999999% durability (on par with providers like AWS S3). Implementing such a system isn't anywhere near as simple or cheap as tossing a couple RAID setups in a couple data centers...

      Not at all. If I have hardware sitting in a farm, and the farm goes down, I can still physically go there and retrieve my hard drives.

      Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the datacenter is down the block, maybe it's hours round trip (the secondary site better be at least!)... Are you even cleared for entry? Are you cleared for entry 24/7 without delay? Most datacenters don't just let tenants walse in anytime they please; physical security being crucial.

      is far beyond the financial capabilities of the vast majority of small businesses and even many medium size businesses.

      Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I manage it, and I'm not wealthy.

      Wealth isn't required, but high availability and durability still don't come cheap, and most small businesses aren't rolling in VC funds. Sounds like you're an IT pro or otherwise in a special case situation where you can mitigate IT costs. Just like some people who run businesses are also CPAs and don't need to hire out that work. But, most businesses aren't run by IT pros or CPAs.

      In a sense, yes. In another sense, it's understandable since cloud providers tend to sell themselves as being without such imperfections.

      There's marketing, and then there's SLAs. ALL businesses tend to oversell themselves in marketing. This is not unique to the IT sector.

      Then why are we debating? Since my only assertion was that it's possible and for some, the best option.

      I have no problem with the position that for some organizations an internal solution is better, but that's not what you said. Your actual assertion that I take the most issue with is: "I would argue that this isn't true for any [emphasis yours] organization." wherein you seem to be claiming that pretty much anyone can do an equal or better job than cloud hosts, which is just not congruent with reality. Most businesses simply do not have the means (funds, in house knowledge, etc.) to produce solutions on par with major hosts, but even with unlimited funds, it's easy to screw up.

    15. Re:What a coincidence! by sjames · · Score: 1

      RAID is not in itself a backup, but a second raid off site certainly can be.

  6. News? by Joviex · · Score: 1

    Downdetector status is now news? wow, this place has finally sailed.

    1. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The news element isn't that a site is down, it's that freakin' *Google* is down. If you've heard of them, you might clue in as to *why* it's news.

    2. Re:News? by Joviex · · Score: 1

      The news element isn't that a site is down, it's that freakin' *Google* is down. If you've heard of them, you might clue in as to *why* it's news.

      Well, I feel sorry for you, anonymous coward.

      Its not news.

      Google is, in fact, NOT down.

      Just a single service, from over 100+ online ones.

      You will have to watch your porn collection later.

    3. Re: News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's Google? should i care?

    4. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have probably used Google half a dozen times today already. They aren't down. All that's down is their "we want users to stop using their own ftp servers" thing, and it's amazing something so useless was ever a thing in a first place.

      Google cancels experimental stuff all the time. Everyone is used to it. But their core functionality, search, remains up. And search is all that any user ever cares about. Search is what Google is good at, and it's pretty much the only service anyone gives a damn about. Well, ok, and maps. Search and maps.

      But storage?! Nobody is interested in using Google for storage. We don't even use Amazon for that yet, and they're semi-attractive at least in some niche ways.

    5. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, since you don't use cloud storage, I guess no one else does. Funny thing that the cloud storage market cap is estimated to reach 500 billion by 2020 though. Yeah I guess your right no one uses it.

    6. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realize it was just one service. One that's used by millions of people daily - whether they even realize it or not.

    7. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      estimated schmestimated.

      Oh, and /s/your/you're/, shitcock.

  7. REFUNDS ALL AROUND! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it's got to be FREE! To do it or DIE!

  8. They should have put it in the cloud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh wait ...

  9. Ouch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must be Oreo's constant mobile data usage. /sarcasm

    According to the dashboard, it's also affecting Google Classroom, during a school day. There's probably some pissed off teachers right about now.....

    Luckily, it's not affecting us.

    Hope it gets fixed soon.

  10. Stop referring to Google by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    writing "the Mountain View-based company". It doesn't make you look professional or anything, just because other media regurgitates in the same way everytime they mention some company.

  11. 99.99% uptime = 0.01% downtime by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    The problem with great SLAs is that if you really want your data all the time, you have to plan for it and have another copy somewhere that isn't being affected by the bad day that your primary provider is having...no matter how remote the chance. Enterprise IT folks deal with this all the time, balancing need for always-on vs. the cost to make that happen.

    Some outages are worse than others too. Cloud providers can have situations where they'll lose access to small portions of their environment, but when you're talking about something wrong with the -entire- software-defined storage soup that those Google Drive URLs feed into....bad day all around.

  12. An outage or... by BronsCon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is this really an outage, or do a bunch of people just owe them 12 cents?

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    1. Re:An outage or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good one ! :)

    2. Re:An outage or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they're owed about $3.50?

  13. No problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...just carry on working with your local versions of documents and files then update the remote versions when the cloud's weather improves. You do have local versions, don't you?

  14. RIAA MPAA by hunter44102 · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, it's the music and movie industry looking for torrents to remove

  15. Too bad, you're not the customer by sremick · · Score: 2

    Well, looks like people are getting their money's worth for Google Drive.

    Remember: if something is free, you're not the customer... you're the product. Google doesn't give a flying fuck about you and your files beyond their ability to mine them for data that they can monetize by selling your privacy away to the highest bidder. They don't care if you lose data... tomorrow there'll be a 1000 new people to take your place even if you actually follow through with your empty threat to boycott them forever more.

    The "cloud" is a joke. All it is is you storing YOUR files on someone ELSE'S computers... someone else who doesn't have one one-millionth of the vested interest in your files that you do, even if you DO opt for one of the pay cloud services. If your data is important to you, why would you pay a premium for some stranger who couldn't care less about your files to take ownership and responsibility for their care? Either step up and take responsibility for your own shit, or stop whining.

    1. Re:Too bad, you're not the customer by swillden · · Score: 2

      Google doesn't give a flying fuck about you and your files beyond their ability to mine them for data that they can monetize by selling your privacy away to the highest bidder.

      Two errors in the above:

      First, Google doesn't data mine Drive files, unless the file in question is marked publicly-accessible by the user.

      Actually, I doubt they mine even public docs for information about the doc owner; my guess that the terms of service include that escape hatch for public docs because they get added to the search index, and so searches may turn them up with ads alongside which would constitute a "marketing or promotional campaign", in the words of the ToS.

      Second, Google doesn't sell user data, even for products that are advertising-based. Google makes money by using the data to target ads, not by selling the data to advertisers (or anyone else).

      Remember: if something is free, you're not the customer... you're the product.

      Often true, but many Drive users are paying customers. And the non-paying users are still customers, just customers getting the free loss leader in hopes of convincing them to buy.

      The "cloud" is a joke. All it is is you storing YOUR files on someone ELSE'S computers... someone else who doesn't have one one-millionth of the vested interest in your files that you do, even if you DO opt for one of the pay cloud services.

      Actually, I'd say that a cloud provider who makes billions on providing cloud services has a great vested interest in keeping your files safe and available. Oh, not so much about your files specifically, but the odds that just yours would get lost are negligible. If they were to lose data, it would hit lots of users... and that could easily cost them billions.

      In particular, Google makes lots of money from enterprise users of Drive, Docs, etc. You can bet they're not going to jeopardize that. And, no, a few hours outage once per year or so isn't that big of a deal. That's less downtime than almost any self-hosted large-scale solution will achieve.

      Either step up and take responsibility for your own shit, or stop whining.

      I take responsibility for my own data, which is why I have a copy of it in Google Drive. Also, another copy on my desktop, one on my laptop and one on my wife's laptop. I used to run my own home file server, with RAID6 plus regular backups, and I dabbled for a while with automatic offset backups using Tahoe LAFS and a backup tool that I wrote. Then I wised up and started doing my offsite backups with a cloud provider and keeping a copy on each machine I use regularly. The result is safer, more reliable and much, much less work.

      (Disclaimer/Disclosure: I work for Google. My relationship with Drive, however, is just that of a satisfied user.)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  16. Google must have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    servers in the Caribbean?

  17. Given Google's form... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is this an outage or did they shut the product down? After all, they generally shut down products when they a) don't have any users because Google never promoted it, or b) the service proves to be popular. ;-)

  18. Face Outage? by tsqr · · Score: 1

    I've read TFS and TFA, and I still don't know what a "face outage" is, or how Google drives it.

  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. How could you even tell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even when it's "working" it is down for long periods of time.

  22. Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So normally I don't do anything "cloud" and keep all my own data backed up rotated through external devices. Since I am right in the "cone of death" of Irma I decided it would be prudent to get some things on Drive (especially if I need to make a homeowners claim).

    Great timing Google. I didn't have enough to do with this storm.