CODEWITHSUNDEEP
amazon-s3amazon-web-servicesstorageredundancy
tim peterson
tim peterson

Reputation: 24305

AWS s3 standard vs. reduced redundancy storage?

Does anyone know of any real-world analysis on data loss using these two AWS s3 storage options? I know from the AWS docs (via Quora) that one is 99.9999999% guarenteed and the other is only 99.99% gaurenteed but I'm looking for data from a non-AWS source.

Anecdotes or something more thorough would both be great. I apologize if this isn't the right SE site for this question. Feel free to suggest a place to migrate it.

Upvotes: 2

Views: 3775

Answers (1)

dom
dom

Reputation: 11962

I guess it depends on the data you're storing if you really need 99.999999999% level of durability …

If you keep copies of your data locally and are just using S3 as a convenient place to store data that is actively being accessed by services within the AWS infrastructure, RRS might be the right choice for you :)

In my case, I keep fresh files on the normal durability level till I created a local backup and then move them to RRS, which saves you quite a bit a money.

Upvotes: 4

Related Questions