Skip to main content

Google Gmail a blow for the Cloud?

Honestly I didn't notice a outage.

In the last year, the idea of "cloud computing" -- the transition of desktop computing functions like email and word processing to external servers managed by tech giants -- has gained an enormous amount of traction. Today, most tech observers agree that in the future, much of our data will be stored in "the cloud," a vast network of inter-connected web-based servers far removed from individual users.

But several recent high-profile outages of popular web-based services, including Twitter, Amazon's S3 storage system, Apple's MobileMe web software suite, and now Google's Gmail, raise serious questions about the reliability of cloud computing. (After a 90-minute, apparently system-wide outage, Google said the problem was fixed.)

The GMail outage affected millions of users in the middle of Monday afternoon. Consumers and businesses weighing whether to use Google's online suite of tools, Google Docs, have taken notice. "Given the amount of my digital life that is stored at Google, it's a wake-up call," wrote Mashable.com blogger Mark 'Rizzn' Hopkins.
More here.
Labels:

Comments

  1. AnonymousWed Aug 13, 12:53:00 AM GMT+2

    I share your concerns, up to a certain extent. But on the other hand Gmail is free (and very poorly monetized via the ads that nobody ever clicks on) so they don't have to guarantee a permanent uptime. Google is known for using loads of cheap servers rather than a small number of expensive ones. The downside is that sometimes those cheap servers stop working, but without them we wouldn't have a free email with so much storage. (OK, there may be other ones now, but they all came about in response to Gmail.)

    There are other services, such as Salesforce.com, which are web-based and yet they are very reliable (although they did have at least one major outage to my knowledge: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-146130.html ). Salesforce and other web-based services that customers need to pay for work on good and reliable servers as opposed to the endless racks of cheap servers used by Google. (In fact I believe Google too uses expensive servers for their paying customers, such as the businesses that use Google Apps.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chris BedwellWed Aug 13, 07:00:00 AM GMT+2

    Honestly, though, bad things happen to documents even on your own hard drive occasionally (viruses, bad sectors, etc.). And hardware sometimes fail, even in the personal computing world. And even on the biggest internal corporate networks, systems sometimes go down temporarily. I'm not that concerned yet.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Security: VMware Workstation 6 vulnerability

vulnerable software: VMware Workstation 6.0 for Windows, possible some other VMware products as well type of vulnerability: DoS, potential privilege escalation I found a vulnerability in VMware Workstation 6.0 which allows an unprivileged user in the host OS to crash the system and potentially run arbitrary code with kernel privileges. The issue is in the vmstor-60 driver, which is supposed to mount VMware images within the host OS. When sending the IOCTL code FsSetVoleInformation with subcode FsSetFileInformation with a large buffer and underreporting its size to at max 1024 bytes, it will underrun and potentially execute arbitrary code. Security focus
Post a Comment
Read more

OS Virtualization comparison: Parallels' Virtuozzo vs the rest

Virtuozzo's main differentiators versus hypervisors center on overhead, virtualization flexibility, administration and cost. Virtuozzo requires significantly less overhead than hypervisor solutions, generally in the range of 1% to 5% compared with 7% to 25% for most hypervisors, leaving more of the system available to run user workloads. Customers can also virtualize a wider range of applications using Virtuozzo, including transactional databases, which often suffer from performance problems when used with hypervisors. On the administration side, customers need to manage, maintain and secure just a single OS instance, while the hypervisor model requires customers to manage many OS instances. Of course, the hypervisor vendors have worked hard to automate much of this process, but it still requires more effort to manage and maintain multiple operating systems than a single instance. Finally, OS virtualization with Virtuozzo has a lower list price than the leading hypervisor for comme...
Post a Comment
Read more