Technology

40548 readers

119 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

110

A data center fire in South Korea sees 858 TB of government files and 'eight years’ worth of work' stored in the cloud go up in smoke (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 1 week ago by ryujin470@fedia.io to c/technology@beehaw.org

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] doeknius_gloek@discuss.tchncs.de 41 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Allegedly, backups simply couldn't be kept, due to the G-Drive system's massive capacity.

X Doubt. Things like S3 can also store massive amounts of data and still support backups or at least geo replication. It's probably just a matter of cost.

But it gets worse. It turns out that before the fire, the Ministry of the Interior and Safety had apparently instructed government employees to store everything in the G-Drive cloud and not on their office PCs.

Which is totally fine and reasonable? The problem isn't the order to use the centralized cloud system, but that the system hasn't been sufficiently secured against possible data loss.

[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 44 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If you can't afford backups, you can't afford storage. Anyone competent would factor that in from the early planning stages of a PB-scale storage system.

Going into production without backups? For YEARS? It's so mind-bogglingly incompetent that I wonder if the whole thing was a long-term conspiracy to destroy evidence or something.

[–] dalekcaan@feddit.nl 17 points 1 week ago

A conspiracy is always possible of course, but people really do tend to put off what isn't an immediate problem until it's a disaster.

Fukushima springs to mind. The plant had been warned more than a decade before the disaster that an earthquake in the wrong place would result in catastrophe and didn't do anything about it, and lo and behold...

[–] Dragonstaff@leminal.space 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I was just thinking that incompetence on this scale is likely deliberate.

Either some manager refused to pay for backups and they're too highly placed to hold accountable, or they deliberately wanted to lose some data, but I refuse to believe anyone built this system without even considering off-site backups.

[–] locuester@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago

Pretty sure this guy was in charge. Feels like simple incompetence and bad luck.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 5 points 1 week ago

It would be useful to know what percentage of the total storage these 858TB are, because that is practically nothing nowadays.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago

Tape backup is still a thing.