Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


123-reg deleted accidentally many of VPS
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

123-reg deleted accidentally many of VPS

Comments

  • iwaswrongonceiwaswrongonce Member
    edited April 2016

    Glad you read the article:

    123-reg said that the blunder had affected 67 out of 115,000 of the virtual private servers it has scattered across Europe.

    No idea why Ars decided to pick up what seems like a minor incident. The "61%" number refers to 61% of the 67 affected, so 41 VPS of 115k...

  • dailydaily Member
    edited April 2016

    @iwaswrongonce said:
    Glad you read the article:

    123-reg said that the blunder had affected 67 out of 115,000 of the virtual private servers it has scattered across Europe.

    Those 67 VPS's could have been hosting hundreds of websites. Literally the next line is:

    "It declined to reveal how many customers' websites had been deleted, however, preferring only to say that it was a "small proportion.""

    Obviously they are embarrassed by the amount of damage done.

    Why be such a smart ass?

    Thanked by 1AlbaHost
  • AlbaHostAlbaHost Member, Host Rep

    @iwaswrongonce said:
    Glad you read the article:

    123-reg said that the blunder had affected 67 out of 115,000 of the virtual private servers it has scattered across Europe.

    No idea why Ars decided to pick up what seems like a minor incident. The "61%" number refers to 61% of the 67 affected, so 41 VPS of 115k...

    Edited the topic, so calm down ;)

  • @iwaswrongonce said:
    Glad you read the article:

    123-reg said that the blunder had affected 67 out of 115,000 of the virtual private servers it has scattered across Europe.

    No idea why Ars decided to pick up what seems like a minor incident. The "61%" number refers to 61% of the 67 affected, so 41 VPS of 115k...

    Regardless of how few VPSes were lost, it's unacceptable for any provider, let alone such a big, well-known and fairly reputable provider, to accidentally wipe customer data.

    It's a big deal because customers should be able to trust that their data is safe with known providers. Except in very extreme circumstances where there's multiple disk failure in the node there's just no excuse.

    Thanked by 1AlbaHost
  • @dailymc said:
    Those 67 VPS's could have been hosting hundreds of websites. Literally the next line is:

    Why be such a smart ass?

    Ok, so what? The other 115k could be hosting millions of websites then. The original title was that they deleted "all" or "most"...something to that effect. Even "many" is a stretch.

    I'm not being a smart ass. I just was pointing out the inflammatory title.

  • @shammy said:

    @iwaswrongonce said:
    Glad you read the article:

    123-reg said that the blunder had affected 67 out of 115,000 of the virtual private servers it has scattered across Europe.

    No idea why Ars decided to pick up what seems like a minor incident. The "61%" number refers to 61% of the 67 affected, so 41 VPS of 115k...

    Regardless of how few VPSes were lost, it's unacceptable for any provider, let alone such a big, well-known and fairly reputable provider, to accidentally wipe customer data.

    It's a big deal because customers should be able to trust that their data is safe with known providers. Except in very extreme circumstances where there's multiple disk failure in the node there's just no excuse.

    Uh, great? I agree it's unacceptable. That has nothing to do with it being newsworthy. 67 VPS probably from a single node...should Ars write a story every time a VPS node fails?

    I read this article the other day, and was frustrated that Ars wasted my time with it. And seeing it here all hyped up is just as bad.

  • AlbaHostAlbaHost Member, Host Rep
    edited April 2016

    @iwaswrongonce said:

    @dailymc said:
    Those 67 VPS's could have been hosting hundreds of websites. Literally the next line is:

    Why be such a smart ass?

    Ok, so what? The other 115k could be hosting millions of websites then. The original title was that they deleted "all" or "most"...something to that effect. Even "many" is a stretch.

    I'm not being a smart ass. I just was pointing out the inflammatory title.

    The original title was "most" and not all, seems you have had a bad day haven't you? Everytime if any node fails it will cause alot lost of customers importat datas, so what's wrong if i have posted this?

  • @AlbaHost said:

    @iwaswrongonce said:

    @dailymc said:
    Those 67 VPS's could have been hosting hundreds of websites. Literally the next line is:

    Why be such a smart ass?

    Ok, so what? The other 115k could be hosting millions of websites then. The original title was that they deleted "all" or "most"...something to that effect. Even "many" is a stretch.

    I'm not being a smart ass. I just was pointing out the inflammatory title.

    The original title was "most" and not all, seems you have had a bad day haven't you? Everytime if any node fails it will cause alot lost of customers importat datas, so what's wrong if i have posted this?

    No I've had a completely uneventful day. But lovely attempt to flip this on me. You didn't read the article. You put "most" because the title said they couldn't recover 61% of VPS (which would indeed be most). I called you out on it. No big deal. I don't care.

    Buuuut all the white knights jumping in about how regardless it's bad for a provider to lose data...no shit. Doesn't that go without saying or is the average LET poster really that intellectually deficient? Just pointing out that this wasn't some massive outage. Hell I'd be more interested if it were.

    Thanked by 1Ole_Juul
  • AlbaHostAlbaHost Member, Host Rep

    @iwaswrongonce said:

    @AlbaHost said:

    @iwaswrongonce said:

    @dailymc said:
    Those 67 VPS's could have been hosting hundreds of websites. Literally the next line is:

    Why be such a smart ass?

    Ok, so what? The other 115k could be hosting millions of websites then. The original title was that they deleted "all" or "most"...something to that effect. Even "many" is a stretch.

    I'm not being a smart ass. I just was pointing out the inflammatory title.

    The original title was "most" and not all, seems you have had a bad day haven't you? Everytime if any node fails it will cause alot lost of customers importat datas, so what's wrong if i have posted this?

    No I've had a completely uneventful day. But lovely attempt to flip this on me. You didn't read the article. You put "most" because the title said they couldn't recover 61% of VPS (which would indeed be most). I called you out on it. No big deal. I don't care.

    Buuuut all the white knights jumping in about how regardless it's bad for a provider to lose data...no shit. Doesn't that go without saying or is the average LET poster really that intellectually deficient? Just pointing out that this wasn't some massive outage. Hell I'd be more interested if it were.

    Actually an thread was here already, https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/81431/uk-host-123-reg-accidentally-deleted-an-unspecified-number-of-client-sites/p1
    Called admins/mods to close this thread before someone start crying here :)

  • teamaccteamacc Member
    edited April 2016

    They might've been unable to recover the rest as well, but clients had backups?

    They only state that "61% of the vpsses affected have not come back up yet"

    Then again, that means that 61% of their clients had no backup strategy in place for such an event.

    Thanked by 1AlbaHost
  • AmitzAmitz Member

    Closed as requested.

    Thanked by 1AlbaHost
This discussion has been closed.