We checked 53,709 production resources for backups. 61% had none.
Disclosure: I work at Eon, on the content side. Our team ran these assessments and this is our data. I didn't write the queries, but I sat with the engineer who did, and the methodology below includes what we couldn't see. Argue with it. Most backup tools produce a coverage report, and most of those reports work from tags. They check the resources a policy already enrolled, which is usually…
Eon's team conducted a comprehensive assessment of 53,709 production resources across 78 cloud environments on AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure. The results revealed that 61.2% of these production resources lacked any backup policy, recovery point, or native cloud snapshot. The study found that only 14% of AWS production resources carried a production tag, while 66% had no environment tag at all, and 19% had an environment tag containing something unrelated to the environment.
Intriguingly, of the 53,709 production resources, only 0.9% had a documented exclusion for skipping backups. The median age of a production resource without a recovery copy was 502 days, significantly older than the 363 days for those with backups in place. Interestingly, 55% of the unprotected resources were over 12 months old, indicating a resident population of resources left unprotected, rather than a backlog of newly created resources.
This issue highlights the limitations of relying solely on backup tools for coverage reports, as they often only account for resources tagged as production. The study emphasizes the importance of counting from the cloud side using live inventory from every account and region through read-only APIs to ensure comprehensive protection. Implementing documented exclusions and regularly reevaluating the coverage is crucial to maintaining robust backup processes and safeguarding against potential data loss.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
