What do you mean 'finally' - surely 'redundancy' or 'natural disaster' is reason enough.

RamblingCTO 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

To a lot of managers/startup execs this is something like "we won't ever need this". And I'd agree to some extent for not so important/rebuildable services. Depends on what you need. In startups, you don't have infinite time you can spend on stuff. But this makes a good case: if a geographical region only has one AWS region, don't keep data or run services that can't be easily rebuild somewhere else. In europe you can just pick two AWS regions and you stay in the same regions, UAE not so much.

▲

doubled112 32 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't think this changes anything. It is always the same argument for me.

"How often do those happen?"

	▲	RamblingCTO 27 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That was my point: now we have a very specific case we can argue. I always used the "what if a plane crashes into the data center" argument. Now I can say: in one of my engagements, we lost a datacenter completely because of a drone attack. That's a first for AWS as well, but we can draw from reality, not hypotheticals.