Mapping and collecting data stored in an IaaS environment
Once data is in the hands of the IaaS providers, is it really where you think it is? The answer is a resounding maybe.
July 13, 2012 at 04:30 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In part one of this three-part series, we discussed some of the basic concepts and advantages when organizations abandon the traditional concept of data storage and move their IT infrastructure to Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) providers. However, once the data is in the hands of the IaaS providers, is it really where you think it is? The answer is a resounding “maybe.”
If you take a few minutes to peruse the service-level agreements for Amazon's various service offerings, you will find that Amazon operates its data hosting/providing services out of data centers in eight distinct regions across the globe: U.S. East (located in Northern Virginia), U.S. West (located in Oregon), U.S. West (located in Northern California), EU (located in Ireland), Asia Pacific (located in Singapore), Asia Pacific (located in Tokyo), South America (located in Sao Paulo) and a separate environment for the U.S. government. Therefore, when you sign up for Amazon's services, you would naturally assume that your data will remain housed at that one particular location within that particular region. As it turns out, that both is and is not the case.
As an example of how data can be stored in one location, but not always be in that location, we need to focus on Amazon's U.S. East region, in which it operates its data hosting/providing services. A quick Google search will show you that in that region, which Amazon defines as being located in “Northern Virginia”, the company actually operates data centers in Ashburn, Va.; Miami, Fla.; and, Newark, N.J. As with any other large data provider, Amazon presumably operates its data centers with some level of redundancy. I say “presumably” because Amazon is, with good reason, tight-lipped about its exact method of operation. It is that concept of redundancy that allows the data to both be in one particular location and also not in that location.
To drill down even further in this example, say your organization, located in Amazon's U.S. East region, gets all of its IT services through Amazon, to include storage space for individual users on file servers. One of these users, John Doe from human resources, has a spreadsheet that contains confidential information concerning the number of and types of complaints filed against certain employees. To John Doe, that spreadsheet is found on what he sees as the “S” drive on his computer. On the back end however, the primary copy of that spreadsheet could be stored on a hard drive in the Ashburn, Va. data center. It also is entirely possible that a complete copy, or parts of a copy, could be stored on other hard drives in the Ashburn, Va. data center, or on hard drives in the Miami and/or Newark data centers.
Therefore, when it comes to mapping where your data is located in an IaaS setting, you must always take the concept of redundancy into consideration. You can map out, with a high degree of certitude where individual copies of files are located within your organization's IaaS environment; however, you should always remember that there may be a redundant copy of those files somewhere within the IaaS provider's systems.
So does this mean that the whole concept of collecting data in a sound manner from IaaS environments is a moot point because you can never be certain that you are collecting everything? The short answer is no, and we will be discussing that in the third and final installment of our three-part series.
In part one of this three-part series, we discussed some of the basic concepts and advantages when organizations abandon the traditional concept of data storage and move their IT infrastructure to Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) providers. However, once the data is in the hands of the IaaS providers, is it really where you think it is? The answer is a resounding “maybe.”
If you take a few minutes to peruse the service-level agreements for Amazon's various service offerings, you will find that Amazon operates its data hosting/providing services out of data centers in eight distinct regions across the globe: U.S. East (located in Northern
As an example of how data can be stored in one location, but not always be in that location, we need to focus on Amazon's U.S. East region, in which it operates its data hosting/providing services. A quick
To drill down even further in this example, say your organization, located in Amazon's U.S. East region, gets all of its IT services through Amazon, to include storage space for individual users on file servers. One of these users, John Doe from human resources, has a spreadsheet that contains confidential information concerning the number of and types of complaints filed against certain employees. To John Doe, that spreadsheet is found on what he sees as the “S” drive on his computer. On the back end however, the primary copy of that spreadsheet could be stored on a hard drive in the Ashburn, Va. data center. It also is entirely possible that a complete copy, or parts of a copy, could be stored on other hard drives in the Ashburn, Va. data center, or on hard drives in the Miami and/or Newark data centers.
Therefore, when it comes to mapping where your data is located in an IaaS setting, you must always take the concept of redundancy into consideration. You can map out, with a high degree of certitude where individual copies of files are located within your organization's IaaS environment; however, you should always remember that there may be a redundant copy of those files somewhere within the IaaS provider's systems.
So does this mean that the whole concept of collecting data in a sound manner from IaaS environments is a moot point because you can never be certain that you are collecting everything? The short answer is no, and we will be discussing that in the third and final installment of our three-part series.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRecent Layoff/Callback Litigation Underscores Perils Employers Face From Every Direction
5 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
In-House Gurus Say Inattention to Human Side of Tech Adoption Can Derail Best-Laid Plans
5 minute readNike Promotes Legal Chief to Marketing Chief as New CEO Launches Turnaround
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3Mass. Judge Declares Mistrial in Talc Trial: 'Court Can't Accommodate This Case'
- 4It's Time Law Firms Were Upfront About Who Their Salaried Partners Are
- 5Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250