<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Phanfare Blog - Latest Comments in Surviving an Amazon S3 outage</title><link>http://phanfare.disqus.com/</link><description>Views from Phanfare, Photo and Video sharing for the iPhone</description><atom:link href="http://phanfare.disqus.com/surviving_an_amazon_s3_outage/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:17:12 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Surviving an Amazon S3 outage</title><link>http://blog.phanfare.com/2008/07/surviving-an-amazon-s3-outage/#comment-4942482</link><description>hi andrew-
&lt;br&gt;quick question, i remember your post from a year ago where you explained that s3 was only used for backup/archiving. is s3 now being used as primary storage with phanfare's DC used for hot storage? (if so, was this a result of amazon's SLA for s3?)  sorry if you already explained this somewhere.
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;thanks</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">anand</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:17:12 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Surviving an Amazon S3 outage</title><link>http://blog.phanfare.com/2008/07/surviving-an-amazon-s3-outage/#comment-4942481</link><description>Ben - Was Smug down because of S3?  I know they do a lot of rendering and stuff on EC2 and my understanding is that EC2 was down because of the S3 outage.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Brad</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:47:32 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Surviving an Amazon S3 outage</title><link>http://blog.phanfare.com/2008/07/surviving-an-amazon-s3-outage/#comment-4942480</link><description>THIS is why I host my photos and videos on Phanfare rather than that "not-so-smug now are we" competitor of yours!  Good job Phanfolks!!</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ben C</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:09:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Surviving an Amazon S3 outage</title><link>http://blog.phanfare.com/2008/07/surviving-an-amazon-s3-outage/#comment-4942479</link><description>I don't understand why Amazon doesn't bolt a shell like that onto S3.  It seems that anybody using S3 seriously has to do it themselves which makes it just another hurdle to obtaining larger partners.  I understand that it is a complicated system (regardless of the name), but the interface should be simple (which it pretty much is) and it should be rock-solid (which it isn't).  I've been evaluating this since pre-beta and I still don't feel that it is worth the cost or risk.  I currently store my own stuff much cheaper, but I have the management headache that I'd love to outsource.  My biggest concern to this day is that they still charge .15/GB/month which they charged almost two years ago.  My costs have been cut in half since then.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Brad</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:22:10 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
