> Two cloud providers pretty much guarantees against that -- the idea that two would terminate it simultaneously is vanishingly small.
Ask Julian Assange about that. Sure, the US government claimed he had committed a crime, but he disagreed. You really need to store your data in at least two of (a) NATO and Western-aligned countries (b) Russia and aligned countries (c) Mainland China, and that’s assuming the prior probability of you being at risk in those blocs is low. It’s hard to avail yourself of this if you’re a legitimate company, but plausible if you’re a private citizen.
SLA numbers don't say anything about your particular piece of data, just all customer data on aggregate.
> The idea that two would terminate it simultaneously is vanishingly small.
Au contraire, if you become sanctioned or illegal, both would necessarily have to terminate simultaneously, if the cloud providers want to comply with local laws.
You're not using a Chinese or Iranian cloud, are you?
Cloud provider stats are based on aggregate numbers. If they claim 99.999% of all data is retained, and they have 100,000 TB of data collectively, then if they lose your entire 1 TB of data then they can still claim that they maintain 99.999% of data as long as they don't lose anyone else's data.
But in practice everybody's data is widely distributed.
So I'm not sure what kind of event you're imagining that would take down one customer's data and no one else's.
It's not an issue. Whereas if you're warehousing all your data in a single physical location, it's vastly more likely for it to be fully destroyed due to a fire/earthquake/flood/etc.
Don't they publish SLA numbers? The reliability of the major cloud providers seems quite well-established.
> There's no guarantee your cloud won't terminate your account
Two cloud providers pretty much guarantees against that -- the idea that two would terminate it simultaneously is vanishingly small.