4 ms·
> We would have lost everything — years of work Okay that sounds like a greater systemic problem. You should be have been able to deploy your git repository o
by deltateam 8y ago
> We would have lost everything — years of work
Okay that sounds like a greater systemic problem.
You should be have been able to deploy your git repository on another system pretty quickly, as well as have your own backups of your database.
The most time consuming thing should be setting up the environment variables.
Let me see, what else would be tricky: if you are using google analytics that data might be gone, but your other metrics package should have had many snapshots of that data too
- CyanLite2 8y agoNot OP, but according to his business case, being down for a few days could bankrupt the company. Re-deploying from git doesn't solve the use-case of your public cloud provider pulling the plug on your machines.
- hedora 8y agoFrom a Google shareholder’s perspective, this approach is unacceptable: The only way to use their product safely is to engineer your entire business so that cloud providers are completely interchangeable. Forcing the entire industry to pay the cost of transparently switching upfront completely commoditizes cloud providers, which means they’ll no longer be able to charge a sustainable markup for their offerings. This is fiscally negligent. Upper management should be fired. However, it’s great for the rest of the industry — Google nukes a few random startups from orbit, some VCs take a bath, early and mid-range adopters bleed money engineering open source workarounds, and everone else’s cloud costs drop to the marginal costs of electricity and silicon.
- deltateam 8y agoits not even a premature optimization to make completely interchangeable server code these days. the shareholders should be proud that such naivete towards vendor lock is still rampant