October 13, 2009 12:40 AM
- Text
Limits of the Cloud Spells Data Loss
(MoneyWatch)
It's been quite a week for data loss. First, Microsoft and T-Mobile managed to create an enormous crash, wiping out customer data in both primary and backup storage, without any off-line copies apparently having been included in the system design. Apple uncharacteristically admits a problem with data loss in Snow Leopard, though saying that it only happens in "extremely rare cases," which is little comfort if that's where you find yourself. And Facebook had a database outage that cut 150,000 users from getting into their accounts. And that doesn't even include Google's two Gmail outages last month, which led the Christian Science Monitor to ask if Gmail is the new Twitter. Don't think this is a curious anomaly, as there will be a lot more of this as people move to the cloud.
It's not that no one knows how to handle data for customers. But it's apparently a lot tougher to pull off than you might think. After all, if Microsoft and Google can't do this on a predictable and constant basis, who does that leave? Rackspace? Oh, wait, outage in June. IBM? Right, outage for Air New Zealand on Sunday. Anybody?
Nope.
Moving to cloud-based computing with the type of reliability that people demand -- that is, constant and unending -- is virtually impossible to pull off. And that explains why, even with all the hype with which vendors attend new developments in technology, which mean developments in ways of making money, corporate IT departments have made their reluctance to fully embrace cloud computing palpable. There's a reason: they want to keep their jobs, and when chances taken go wildly wrong, that may not be possible.
So who does that leave as customers? Consumers? Sure, but as the freemium companies have found, they want everything for nothing and are unlikely to pay money for what they do get. The rollicking assumptions by those pushing the term cloud will have to take a rest while people figure out whether anyone can offer the combination of assurance and business model that will actually allow a vendor to thrive.
Image via stock.xchng user arcturus, site standard license.
It's been quite a week for data loss. First, Microsoft and T-Mobile managed to create an enormous crash, wiping out customer data in both primary and backup storage, without any off-line copies apparently having been included in the system design. Apple uncharacteristically admits a problem with data loss in Snow Leopard, though saying that it only happens in "extremely rare cases," which is little comfort if that's where you find yourself. And Facebook had a database outage that cut 150,000 users from getting into their accounts. And that doesn't even include Google's two Gmail outages last month, which led the Christian Science Monitor to ask if Gmail is the new Twitter. Don't think this is a curious anomaly, as there will be a lot more of this as people move to the cloud.It's not that no one knows how to handle data for customers. But it's apparently a lot tougher to pull off than you might think. After all, if Microsoft and Google can't do this on a predictable and constant basis, who does that leave? Rackspace? Oh, wait, outage in June. IBM? Right, outage for Air New Zealand on Sunday. Anybody?
Nope.
Moving to cloud-based computing with the type of reliability that people demand -- that is, constant and unending -- is virtually impossible to pull off. And that explains why, even with all the hype with which vendors attend new developments in technology, which mean developments in ways of making money, corporate IT departments have made their reluctance to fully embrace cloud computing palpable. There's a reason: they want to keep their jobs, and when chances taken go wildly wrong, that may not be possible.
So who does that leave as customers? Consumers? Sure, but as the freemium companies have found, they want everything for nothing and are unlikely to pay money for what they do get. The rollicking assumptions by those pushing the term cloud will have to take a rest while people figure out whether anyone can offer the combination of assurance and business model that will actually allow a vendor to thrive.
Image via stock.xchng user arcturus, site standard license.
-
Erik Sherman Erik Sherman is a widely published writer and editor who also does select ghosting and corporate work. Follow him on Twitter at @ErikSherman or on Facebook.
Follow on Twitter »
Latest Now in MoneyWatch
- Jill on Money: Retirement investing, allocation, long term care
- Could "web-lining" be dangerous?
- Insurers respond cautiously to contraceptive plan
- Judge: Legally, breastfeeding not related to pregnancy
- Budget deficit drops to $27 billion in January
- Why the Powerball Jackpot is part of my investment strategy
- Is the new VW Beetle diesel worth the money?
- Consumer sentiment highlights risks to recovery
- Valentine blues? 10 best cities to be single
- December trade deficit widens to $48.8 billion
- Alcatel-Lucent returns to profit in 2011
- 6 things never to say in a performance review
- $26B mortgage deal: Who gets the money?
- Friendly's CEO steps down
- Quarterly loss hits $3.3B at Postal Service
- Greeks rail against cuts as EU demands more
- 6 things you should never share on Facebook
Latest CBS News Headlines
on Facebook
on CBS News
- Cold weather returns to the South; snow possible
- State senator, wife, attacked at western NY casino
- Hundreds gather in Kansas to remember oldest judge
- King memorial group head angry at monument change
on Facebook
- Adele sings a cappella for Anderson Cooper
- Occupy protestors kicked out of CPAC
- CPAC: Will Sarah Palin spring a surprise?
- Beyonce and Jay-Z post first photos of Blue Ivy Carter
on CBS News






