[petee]

Wow, for a company that boasts "no bullshit", only offering a month after destroying data and backups seems a little tone deaf

Edit: in fairness, I'm not sure how exactly you would quantify such a loss anyway...

[Shalle135]

It sounds like they didn’t have any backups at all but rather relied on a active-active replication link to a secondary storage.

Edit: who knows it may be related to the HPE issue.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/hardware/hp-warns-that...

[jnwatson]

In other words, RAID is not backup.

[mschuster91]

What baffles me is that there seems to be no way for either the customer or a data-recovery company to flash a new firmware onto the drive after it has failed. Someone there wanted to spare the few millicents of copper trace for a JTAG port?!

[marcinzm]

Probably to prevent supply chain firmware changes for hacking, espionage, etc.

[deelowe]

Hmm... I wonder what the "incident" was. If it involved something akin to an "rm -rf," then of course their replication link didn't protect them.

[fencepost]

Perhaps they were depending on snapshotting and were not prepared for some kind of hardware failure taking out the entire storage system.

[joepie91_]

Reputable hosting providers typically don't try to quantify such a loss, but rather outright offer a credit/compensation that is very obviously generous (say, a year or even two of free service).

Especially when a small set of your customerbase is affected, it won't cost you that much, and "overcompensating" like that means that virtually noone is going to criticize you for quantifying it wrong; instead, the public narrative will be centered around "well, shit happens, they did their best and generously compensated".