452
submitted 6 months ago by Moonrise2473@feddit.it to c/technology@lemmy.ml

A week of downtime and all the servers were recovered only because the customer had a proper disaster recovery protocol and held backups somewhere else, otherwise Google deleted the backups too

Google cloud ceo says "it won't happen anymore", it's insane that there's the possibility of "instant delete everything"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 47 points 6 months ago

Tbh I do not understand why would a company keep their data on a service like Google Cloud

[-] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 44 points 6 months ago

Because accountants mostly.

For large businesses, you essentially have two ways to spend money:

  • OPEX: "operational expenditure" - this is money that you send on an ongoing basis, things like rent, wages, the 3rd party cleaning company, cloud services etc. The expectation is that when you use OPEX, the money disappears off the books and you don't get a tangible thing back in return. Most departments will have an OPEX budget to spend for the year.
  • CAPEX: "capital expenditure" - buying physical stuff, things like buildings, stock, machinery and servers. When you buy a physical thing, it gets listed as an asset on the company accounts, usually being "worth" whatever you paid for it. The problem is that things tend to lose value over time (with the exception of property), so when you buy a thing the accountants will want to know a depreciation rate - how much value it will lose per year. For computer equipment, this is typically ~20%, being "worthless" in 5 years. Departments typically don't have a big CAPEX budget, and big purchases typically need to be approved by the company board.

This leaves companies in a slightly odd spot where from an accounting standpoint, it might look better on the books to spend $3 million/year on cloud stuff than $10 million every 5 years on servers

[-] TCB13@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago

Excellent explanation, however, technically it does not constitute an "odd spot." Rather, it represents a "100% acceptable and evident position" as it brings benefits to all stakeholders, from accounting to the CEO. Moreover, it is noteworthy that investing in services or leasing arrangements increases expenditure, resulting in reduced tax liabilities due to lower reported profits. Compounding this, the prevailing high turnover rate among CEOs diminishes incentives for making significant long-term investments.

In certain instances, there is also plain corruption. This occurs when a supplier offering services such as computer and server leasing or software, as well as company car rentals, is owned by a friend or family member of a C-level executive.

[-] cheeseandrice@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago
[-] TCB13@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

This guy corporates

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (31 replies)
this post was submitted on 11 May 2024
452 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

34917 readers
119 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS