Refusing service is fine, but holding my data hostage and refusing access to it is not, so I am making a note to not consider DO for any kind of hosting.
(As noted by many observers during the initial event, anyone keeping their data exclusively within one organisation's walls is a profound mistake.)
Because shutting down running servers without warning is completely unacceptable for a B2B infrastructure provider.
I suspect that it almost definitely is not.
As IT professionals we should do better than use words like 'kill' to describe system and account changes.
As I understand it, Digital Ocean suspended the account, and because the (perceived) problem was related to excessive / potentially fraudulent CPU usage, they suspended the machines. The data contained on them was not deleted. Does that match your reading?
As someone who suffered from extremely noisy neighbours in AWS (in the very early days), risking significant damage to the performance guarantees to our customers, I'm actually cautiously happy with automated protection systems. Naturally I'd rather noisy neighbours were throttled so that I never heard them, and I expect that's closer to what happens these days
I don't want to spent too much time dumping on them since they clearly know how badly this situation was handled, but this is an example of terrible automated protection leading to a company that's not enterprise-ready. As you say, AWS probably doesn't publicly promise not to terminate your account, but this would never happen because they understand that availability and security matter more than anything else when running B2B infrastructure.
From TFA:
> Shortly thereafter, DigitalOcean investigated the issue and the Raisup account was unlocked and powered back on.
But it's not clear if any data was deleted by DigitalOcean.
The suggestion the account was unlocked rather than re-created suggests it was not, but OTOH there's no reference to erase, delete, restore, or indeed current state of customer data in that post mortem.
That the customer got unlocked is of course a good thing, but for at least 30 hours the customer couldn't access their data, that's highly problematic.
>I suspect that it almost definitely is not.
It's not a promise. But they don't shut it down without letting you know they're going to be shutting it down first.
I can't promise a super fast resolution - but I'd be happy to work internally to see if there's any outside-the-ordinary workarounds we can supply here if you're willing to follow back up on the ticket.