Comment by MadnessASAP
18 hours ago
They did, they contracted with a vendor to store and backup the data. If that is insufficient then just about every customer of AWS, Azure, GCP, OCP, and every other managed storage provider is guilty of the same sin.
I have to agree with GP here, this is pretty incredible. They contracted with a vendor to store their data, not to back it up. It's not a backup if you can lose it in the same instant you lose the data.
You're right, they are. If your data can't survive a single storage host vanishing from existence, you don't have a backup. If your data can't survive one predictable or regularly occurring catastrophic act of nature, you don't have a backup. If your data can't survive a piece of malware -- with all of the credentials you have -- erasing it, you don't have a backup.
EDIT: Also, if you don't regularly test that your backups actually work, you probably don't have a backup. Lots of companies learn that one the hard way.
If you do not have at least one, but usually two copies of a backup in your physical possession, you do not have a backup. |o-o|
> If that is insufficient then just about every customer of AWS, Azure, GCP, OCP, and every other managed storage provider is guilty of the same sin.
Yes, they are as guilty! You say that as if it's a ridiculous assertion. Have you not read the occasional HN submission where someone is locked out of their cloud provider for dubious reasons?
A single vendor to handle the primary storage and all backups is insufficient for your most critical data.
But where are you seeing this vendor was tasked with backups? This looks like a single copy situation.
Then that is just the 1 in 3-2-1 backups, and neglecting the 3 & 2 is a sin (wrt backup strategies).