Live data from Hacker News

Stop Using Digital Ocean Now: The Aftermath

serdardogruyol.com

101–102 of 102 posts

Re: Stop Using Digital Ocean Now: The Aftermath

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a bit sad that you have to go to such great lengths to protect your company's image. This was a very obvious case of customer fault. He admitted that he doesn't know if his server was hacked. The customer probably should have looked into the issue before making a inflammatory blog post. Maybe if you guys charged more you wouldn't get these ultra-cheap customers who think they should get 24/7 support for…

Being attacked or even getting compromised is customer fault ? Okay i get that. But what about closing the account instantly, not notifying the customer, accusing that customer of being a cheap liar and treating them in a bad way?

> But what about closing the account instantly, not notifying the customer, accusing that customer of being a cheap liar and treating them in a bad way?

I know this can be difficult, but it's important to understand the difference between calling someone a liar and pointing out that what is being claimed does not match reality.

DO has to take action to protect their reputation, their other customers, and whoever is the target of the potentially malicious attack. If they have empirical evidence of this attack, then they must take action. When you attempted to explain what you thought was the source of the traffic, they took the time to show (in detail) why that was not the case. This is not the same as calling you a liar. It is calling you incorrect, but these are two very different things.

You can be incorrect and not be a liar. That's a valuable lesson to learn if you intend to work in a technical field. If I were you, I'd try to take a step back. Take a couple of days off and come back to the issue. Try to understand why everyone is siding with DO on this, and resist the urge to immediately believe that everyone is against you.

Re: Stop Using Digital Ocean Now: The Aftermath

#102
OK, after read the two blog posts, and all the comments here, this is my tough:

I've a poor's men backup solution too, from my personal droplet to gmail.

I use it for backup /etc, /root, /usr/local/(s)bin and /html, with excludes and rotations (about 15MB total), encrypted 4 passes with 4 different algorithms.

I did write two scripts, one for backup-restore (and encrypt/decrypt, secure deletion, html email generation, etc) and other to list-retrieve remote backups using IMAP.

On gmail I did put a filter to send all to the trash, so I get 30 days backup rotation. More complex rotations could be implemented using different cron tasks, with different config files, pointing to different accounts (srv-month-number@...), but for my personal VPS I don't need that, 30 days is enough.

But.

Now, I go to the digital ocean panel, to the "backups" tab, and I read:

   "Pricing is set at 20% of the Droplet's monthly cost (e.g. It will cost $1/mo. to enable backups for a 512MB Droplet)."
And I can only think: facepalm.

It's not only the price of the implementation time, that me and this other person with ruby/dropbox have spend...

Even if it looks like "you get a gratis backup solution", really it may be more expensive (because of all the network bandwitch)

Well, at a side of the fun of implementing your own backup/restore scripts, you get:

* provider independence (if all DO is down, you still can restore from gmail or dropbox)

* no periodical costs (but remember the implementation cost maybe bigger the first time, then is just reuse and edit a few variables).

* Security (you control how and where the data goes, otherwise you can save and restore from the provider, but implementation, management, internal policy, budget, team or technology changes, etc around your data is up to you).

But, I will never call again my solution a "poor's man" solution, because counting implementation time and network traffic, is much more expensive than $12/YEAR.

Edit: formatting a list.

Post reply on HN