Technology: Don’t let the cloud services Grinch steal your Christmas
On Christmas Eve 2012, Netflixa leading provider of Internet streamed video contentreceived the electronic equivalent of coal in its online stocking.
January 25, 2013 at 06:24 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
On Christmas Eve 2012, Netflix—a leading provider of Internet streamed video content—received the electronic equivalent of coal in its online stocking.
Beginning on the afternoon of Dec. 24 and continuing well into Christmas Day, many Netflix customers experienced difficulties in accessing portions of Netflix's services. Instead of settling by the fire to watch a movie, these unlucky customers were forced into spending more time with their family and friends.
As it happens, Netflix had outsourced certain of its system operations to a cloud computing service maintained by Amazon. The Netflix Christmas Eve outage was attributable to a failure in Amazon's Northern Virginia data center. Apparently, an Amazon developer had mistakenly deleted data during maintenance operations which resulted in the outage. Ironically, Amazon's competing Prime Instant Video service experienced no holiday downtime.
Given the growing movement by corporate IT departments to rely on outsourced cloud services, the recent Netflix outage offers lessons in how to ensure that such cloud customers are taking adequate steps to protect themselves in their cloud service contracts. Below are some examples of the approaches that cloud customers may consider using.
Adequate Service Levels
In the Netflix Christmas Eve outage services were down for hours before they resumed. Cloud customers should insist that their cloud vendor's contract includes robust service levels with financial incentives for ensuring that there are few service interruptions, the duration of any interruptions are short and that service is quickly restored.
Use of Multiple Sites
As noted earlier, published reports relating to the Netflix outage indicated that the cause of the problem occurred at a single data center. Corporate cloud customers should always undertake adequate due diligence to ensure that potential vendors have the capability to perform the cloud services from more than one site or data center. The use of multiple sites will lessen the likelihood of a prolonged outage attributable to a single site failure.
Business Continuity Provisions & Avoidance of Force Majeure Clauses
Related to the above point, cloud customers should demand that their service providers have strong business continuity and disaster recovery plans to ensure that in the event of any service interruption (regardless of the cause), the vendor has back-up sites at which any crucial services can continue to be performed until the vendor is able to restore its primary sites. Customers should also be alert to the vendor's use of force majeure provisions in their contracts (i.e., provisions that excuse performance in the event of disasters, wars, strikes, etc.). Such clauses should be resisted if possible—but at a minimum, the vendor must first be required to fully comply with approved business continuity and disaster recovery plans before it can excuse performance based on a force majeure event.
Separation of Development, Testing & Production Environments
Published reports indicated that the Netflix outage resulted from a developer introducing changes into the production environment without fully realizing the impact of those changes. Such event illustrates that it may make sense to include provisions in the cloud service contract limiting developer access to production systems and requiring adequate testing of any system changes in a test environment before a change is introduced into a production environment.
Be Prepared for Problems
Clearly, both Amazon and Netflix are companies that are technologically sophisticated. Indeed it is quite likely that Netflix had addressed most (if not all) of these issues in its cloud service contract with Amazon. Even the best systems and back-up plans fail at times. Cloud customers must anticipate that problems will likely occur, but they should have in place reasonable contractual provisions and back-up plans to address those likely failures.
Most importantly, corporate cloud customers should also anticipate how their own customers may be impacted by a cloud vendor's failure. If appropriate the cloud customer's contracts with its own customers should attempt to address the impact of any such possible cloud vendor failures. The cloud customer should, if appropriate, promptly communicate the nature and resolution of the outage as well.
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 AllSemiconductor Component Maker Accused of Deceiving Investors About Market Downturn, Export Curbs
3 minute readRecent FTC Cases Against Auto Dealers Suggest Regulators Are Keeping Foot on Accelerator
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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