Hacker News Reader

Why would they need nework-level redundancy? This is a backup service, and should not have production load on it at any time. I'd rather see a system with a dumb switch and the risk of a 3-4 hour outage if it fails than a smart switch that can then be cracked. (Even then, 3-4 hours is a stretch, as all the remote hands has to do to replace a failed switch is put in any other dumb switch.)

View on HN

Your reasoning could be applied when there is low number of users doing not-so-urgent-nor-important-things. However, the service is provided for a lot of users at the same time here, spread globally and all with their own applications and problems, and accordingly the total impact could potentially be much bigger.

Having the handicap of needing to wait 3-4 hours before being able to access your backups in an emergency, could make a day-and-night difference for continuity.

So I would argue it has nothing to do with "being a backup service", but rather that their users could afford a 3-4 hours of waiting. Or that they don't think like that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com