Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


After Googlefail, will you trust online apps?

Well, that was different. It turns out that Google wasn't the victim of a DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attack by others; Google managed to knock-out its own network.

Wow.

With network engineers like this, who needs crackers?

Urs Hoelzle, Google's senior VP of operations explained, that Google had sent some of its traffic through Asia. Hoelzle wrote, "Imagine if you were trying to fly from New York to San Francisco, but your plane was routed through an airport in Asia. And a bunch of other planes were sent that way too, so your flight was backed up and your journey took much longer than expected. That's basically what happened to some of our users today."

Besides search, all, and I mean all, of Google's applications were knocked out. Which leads me to the question, "Do we really want to rely on Google or any of SaaS (Software as a Service) for our programs?"

While I like online applications, I have never, ever liked the idea of depending on networked applications. What Googlefail underlined to me once more is just how dangerous it is to trust the Internet with my work. There are just too many potential points of failure between my PC and some server in a data-center or the cloud.

I'll still use these services. But, I've never used any of them for any of my essential work.

What do you think? If you use online applications as part of your daily work, are you going to continue to do so? If you don't now, would you consider switching from your local programs to online software?


Related Blogs:


What People Are Saying

You are correct in your VERY

You are correct in your VERY REAL concerns. (I will not be utilizing any software "services" for anything I care about.)

SaaS is yet another pipe dream buzzword which will go down in history as one of the epic fails of IT-bone heads, right along with "Ajax frameworks" (as opposed to real, VM-based RIA technology). If only we could undo the damage and take back all that money wasted on IT morons paid to make mistakes...

the whole point of a PC was control

The PC gives the end user the ability to have a copy of their own applications and some form of independance from things like online applications.

While online applications may have a place, every time they are unavailable, end users will go back to apps loaded on their local hard drives. Unless their own PC goes down, they can still work. Its a form of functional paranoia.

Online apps are sort of like going back to PROFS on the old IBM's. End Users just don't like being dependant on support groups and mainframes. It just isn't as much fun.

Downtime is a reality whether inhouse or not

Downtime is a reality whether the server is in house or not.

What these outages amplify, is the need to build end-user applications that have the capability to keep a locally cached copy of the critical user data and the ability to continue to function during the momentary server outages. This way users can have a real copy of their data and continue to be productive during the momentary outages.

A server outage is one thing, but data loss is another unacceptable scenario altogether. When Google experiences these outages, as far as I've heard, their users don't lose their data - rather they just lose access to it for a time.

I believe in Google and I will continue to use their great software regardless of momentary server outages.

In fact, I believe these types of outages are a good test to further strengthen people's trust in Google's capability to keep from losing their data. These tests will also help Google to develop an even better system.

So don't fret - that's what I say.

If Google is down, you can trust a.) it will be back up very soon, and b.) your data will not be lost.

Shannon VanWagner
humans enabled

Work, really???

"What Googlefail underlined to me once more is just how dangerous it is to trust the Internet with my work."

You work?

What would we lose if you did rely on someone like Google for your "work" and something happened. I for one would certainly not miss any of your overly-hyped Linux is great, Anti-Windows drivel.

In fact, I argue anyone could take your place without missing a beat.

(The following was written by your replacement, the New Anti-Windows, Linux is awesome guy, but without the uni-bomberesque photo):

Surely this Google outage must be Windows fault and Linux could have prevented it. When is Google and the rest of the world going to realize that Linux is the answer to all problems...blah, blah, Linux, blah...

Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux (is awesome).

Wow, after reading this a couple of times, I almost thought YOU really wrote it.

I agree Windows is accused

I agree Windows is accused for almost every thing bad happens. There are lots of anti Windows editors always criticizing Windows and praising Linux.

LOL

LOL..
You are right, all sjvn knows is to write how bad windows is and how Linux is the answer to everything.

SJVN: We expect more articles from you that balanced. Can't you write anything like that?

Too bad

Yes, I look towards Steven (and many other writers) for his (their) points of view whether good or bad, whether I agree or not, as a info tool. Knowledge is powerful. I don't sell Linux but my services for it do very well that my team of 8 have grown to 12 in these hard times to meet the demand.

Respectfully, your comments are absolutely pointless. You don't like Linux? You are not capable of making money with Linux? Linux does not make sense to you? That's ok, please find another hobby.

...too bad

What's too bad is that I actually have to explain that my post isn't bashing Linux. It is directed at the author.

You know the "one that you look towards". The vast majority of his articles are negative except where Linux is involved. He takes shots at everything "big" (see Microsoft, Google etc) or just not Linux.

Taking the opportunity to critique the author is hardly "pointless". I think he can not only handle criticism, I think he expects it, being the "Cyber Cynic" and all.

Nice of you to respond to my "absolutely pointless" posting with one of your own though. Well done.

...too bad

To keep this professional, the main "point" I got out of Steven's article was "How much can we (or should we) depend on a Internet based offering if even one of the most respected company's network can come down".

I do not have an answer nor a response other than "hmm, good point".

I reread your original comments of "I for one would certainly not miss any of your overly-hyped Linux is great, Anti-Windows drivel."

I only respond with: I for one do find value in his comments.

A second comment you made "Surely this Google outage must be Windows fault and Linux could have prevented it. When is Google and the rest of the world going to realize that Linux is the answer to all problems...blah, blah, Linux, blah..."

I Respond with: Windows, Linux and Mac are tools of technology. That technology failed or the way it was configured. I do not see anywhere said or assumed in Steven's article that the Windows tool was to blame. Lots of tools make up the net: Cisco, Brocade, Watchguard, etc.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

...too bad

I got the same thing out of his article.

Too bad he also took the time to be his normal, negative, over-critical self and take a shot at Google's Network Engineers. I found that annoying.

My second comment, to beat a dead horse, wasn't stating in any way, that he wrote anything about Windows in THIS ARTICLE.

The second comment, as you call it, was not to be read by itself, which you have done (twice, evidently). It was preceded by:

*****In fact, I argue anyone could take your place without missing a beat.

(The following was written by your replacement, the New Anti-Windows, Linux is awesome guy, but without the uni-bomberesque photo):*****

Maybe reading it a 3rd time will make sense. Good luck and have a nice weekend.