OT......Skype is down since 4.30. am this morning *globally*(apparently?

[jgh]

Could that database be in my head or on my PC? Could I Skype to

292.234.250.60 (made up invalid address) without any dependancies on anything other than IP routing?

jgh

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher escribió:

This is a /bad/ thing?

[Huge]

Skype is notorious for being able to "end run" around firewall restrictions, to the extent that it's verging on malware.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Skype is back up this minute

[Huge]

But it's the shiny beautiful new cloud! How can things like this happen?

(I'm being facetious, in case anyone doesn't realise!)

[The Natural Philosopher]

You can certainly VOIP that way, I am not sure how skype actually works, so rather than look a total prat, my lips are in this case sealed.

[Huge]

Kinda. When one has elderly relatives who live a long way away.

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Huge escribió:

Sarcasm doesn't work on usenet :)

I was toying with the idea of writing a RAIC5* driver, striping data across a few of the cloud offerings (iCloud, OneDrive, Dropbox, etc), the idea being that data can still be accessed if one of the cloud services goes poof. This has the added benefit that each one only stores partial data so they cannot "analyse" (=snoop) or steal (=slurp) it as it'll look more or less like a collection of random bytes to them.

• Redundant Array of Independent Clouds, level 5

[Bod]

Not here it isn't.

[Huge]

You should never store anything "in the cloud" that you cannot afford either to have stolen, or to lose.

[Tim Watts]

That would explain why I had some Netflix buggerations.

[S Viemeister]

And why yesterday, Amazon wouldn't let me proceed with an order until I corrected an error in my address- the same address I've been using for years, and which they were happy to accept as correct this morning.

[Nick Odell]

That sounds interesting. It might be amusing to float the idea in uk.legal.moderated because it sounds like a form of encryption that wouldn't fall foul of the proposed new laws on encryption. You aren't encrypting anything: you are just allowing the system to decide where to store it and if you have access to the originating computer the file will appear as normal. IOW, if the feds target someone, get a warrant, seize the computer then they can access everything. If they are just snooping remotely they can't. Or have I misunderstood?

Nick

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Nick Odell escribió:

No, you have it bang on. The Feds would need the RAIC5 driver and the identity/location and login credentials for each cloud member forming the RAIC to retrieve the original data. So, yes they could access the data from the original computer.

Whether it's legally viewed as encrypted is another thing. It would be untouched, unencrypted data, it's just the way in which it is striped (with parity) across several member cloud services that makes it impossible to retrieve unless the identities/locations and credentials are obtained for at least (n-1) members of a (n) member RAIC5 "array".

I was coming at this from the viewpoint not of encryption or protecting data from the Feds (that was just a bonus), but from the point of still being able to access your data if one of the member cloud services went down, since the data could be reconstructed using the parity information from the remaining members, in exactly the same manner as RAID5 fault- tolerant hard drive arrays work.

[Vir Campestris]

"Multiple fiber [sic] cuts on the west coast" it said on our internal systems. Packets from CA to OR being routed via Tokyo - which was clogged.

Andy

[John Rumm]

If you stripe the data, you will then only be able to access part of the data should one cloud blow away. You would need to mirror it for your application, and that would then remove your second advantage.

[Andy Burns]

You could use parity stripe(s) like RAID5 or RAID6, then you could survive loss of one or two clouds, with just speed degradation, rather than data loss.

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , John Rumm escribió:

Nonsense. RAID5 is striping with distributed parity.

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Andy Burns escribió:

Correct, which is why I said:

"if one of the member cloud services went down, since the data could be reconstructed using the parity information from the remaining members, in exactly the same manner as RAID5 fault-tolerant hard drive arrays work"