4 ms·

Hold up - are people using OVH for production/business work?

speedgoose 4y ago
Yes, many people deployed a lot in OVH. Their reputation wasn’t perfect but much better before the fire (and the loss of the managed backups drama). They were also big before AWS or Azure arrived in Europe.
throwaway744678 4y ago
Obviously yes, why wouldn't they? I know for a fact that I do. Yes, I was affected by the fire, and had to pull the backups and rebuild the whole stack - we got a few hours of downtime. And yet I stayed with OVH, the main reason being that, even taking into account this unfortunate event, you get a great value for your money. Of course, some businesses can't afford any downtime: in this case, whichever provider one chooses, they have to go multi-cloud, or at least distribute their setup on multiple regions. I have been burned (figuratively!) in the past all the same with big names cloud provider... Shit just happens, be prepared!
- markvdb 4y ago
  > Obviously yes, why wouldn't they? Because OVH's negligence transpires more widely than just in DC fires. I've had my primary business domain name almost expire twice due to OVH's incompetence. I should have run away the first time. I finally did the second time. Never again, thankyouverymuch. Some low cost providers do offer acceptable quality. OVH was (is?) not one of those.
  - the8472 4y ago
    What is acceptable varies. Some things are very low-stakes. Even if your domain-name is important you could manage it with another registrar and still use OVH for their cheap metal.
dx034 4y ago
Of course. They're much cheaper, mostly good quality and have a lot of locations. With any cloud provider you should deploy in multiple data centers (as in separate cities, not just different buildings on the same site). Doesn't matter if the server goes down because of a faulty host or because of a fire. And OVH saves lots of money. As long as you don't need any of the services that only the big 3 offer, I don't see a reason why I would prefer AWS over OVH or Hetzner.

Yes, many people deployed a lot in OVH. Their reputation wasn’t perfect but much better before the fire (and the loss of the managed backups drama). They were also big before AWS or Azure arrived in Europe.

throwaway744678 4y ago

Obviously yes, why wouldn't they? I know for a fact that I do. Yes, I was affected by the fire, and had to pull the backups and rebuild the whole stack - we got a few hours of downtime. And yet I stayed with OVH, the main reason being that, even taking into account this unfortunate event, you get a great value for your money. Of course, some businesses can't afford any downtime: in this case, whichever provider one chooses, they have to go multi-cloud, or at least distribute their setup on multiple regions. I have been burned (figuratively!) in the past all the same with big names cloud provider... Shit just happens, be prepared!

markvdb 4y ago
> Obviously yes, why wouldn't they? Because OVH's negligence transpires more widely than just in DC fires. I've had my primary business domain name almost expire twice due to OVH's incompetence. I should have run away the first time. I finally did the second time. Never again, thankyouverymuch. Some low cost providers do offer acceptable quality. OVH was (is?) not one of those.
- the8472 4y ago
  What is acceptable varies. Some things are very low-stakes. Even if your domain-name is important you could manage it with another registrar and still use OVH for their cheap metal.

dx034 4y ago

Of course. They're much cheaper, mostly good quality and have a lot of locations. With any cloud provider you should deploy in multiple data centers (as in separate cities, not just different buildings on the same site). Doesn't matter if the server goes down because of a faulty host or because of a fire. And OVH saves lots of money. As long as you don't need any of the services that only the big 3 offer, I don't see a reason why I would prefer AWS over OVH or Hetzner.