[StopTheTechies]

I think you're forgetting the cost parameter—obviously no provider can guarantee either reliability or stability

[manuelabeledo]

They can and they do - and if they fail, they cover damages.

[fulafel]

Is there a provider that would cover the customer's damages like interruption of business? There are some insurance companies at least that do similar things.

[Fnoord]

A SLA would. I would just use multiple backups. One self-hosted on-premise and two off-site. Then the two off-site can have egress costs. Wouldn't matter. The self-hosted one would be the primary one to backup from. And it is going to be solid, usually. For example, a Synology NAS would suffice.

[fulafel]

I think nearly all SLAs just give you discounts on the service's bill.

Eg if your service vendor costs you 1000/month and they have a 10-day outage and you lose 10000000, they will credit you 1000 best-case, or maybe 1/3 of that (since it was up most of the month).

[logifail]

> if they fail, they cover damages

Umm, most providers' standard T&Cs exclude liability for indirect or consequential loss following unavailability of their service.

[StopTheTechies]

I'm sorry, S3 insures your data in case of loss? How come they don't ask the value of what you're storing then?

[jzombie]

I'd rather pay a little more money to a reputable vendor, honestly. If I depend on the backup, I want a reasonable guarantee they will deliver on their promise.