Purelinux here. No location, just opinion. Run your own numbers on actual downtime cost vs tier cost. Most people never do this. They pick tier by feeling.
If your application can tolerate downtime, quantify it. 4 hours per year? 40? Then buy accordingly.
This is interesting. Thank you AlexWei. I check Contabo Sydney, they have datacenter there. Same company, same invoice, maybe same actual tier. But then single vendor risk?
Current: Contabo + RackNerd = two vendor. Proposed: Contabo + Contabo = one vendor two location.
Member
Contabo has eleven datacenters. RackNerd has nine. Both are single vendor in the sense that they are companies with single management. Your "two vendor" is already two companies, but both are budget providers with similar support model.
Real multi-vendor would be AWS + Contabo or OVH + RackNerd. What you have is budget diversification, not vendor independence.
Following this thread. We are in similar situation with Hetzner and Netcup, both EUR, both German. Tier discussion is same. We decided to stay at tier II and not promise III. Lost one customer, kept others. Sleep improved.
Thank you all. I will propose to management: keep current tier III primary, renegotiate DR as "warm backup with manual failover" not tier III, and migrate DR to Contabo Sydney for better latency and single invoice. Still two location, still budget provider, but honest words and maybe I sleep again.
Will update if they fire me or promote me. Probably fire. Thank you again.
