Interesting points here, thanks for putting this together. Feels like many organizations might be assuming their SaaS data is safer than it really is. In what ways could regular recovery testing change how teams handle outages?
Two-thirds of IT leaders think their SaaS vendor protects their data. They're wrong.
2 Comments
Regular recovery testing shifts the conversation from "do we have backups?" to "can we actually use them?"
Most teams find out their recovery process doesn't work during an actual outage. That's the worst possible time to discover backups are incomplete, documentation is outdated, or the restore process takes three times longer than expected.
Testing creates muscle memory. When teams run through recovery scenarios quarterly, they know exactly who does what, which APIs to call, and where the dependencies are. During a real incident, that familiarity cuts recovery time significantly.
It also surfaces hidden problems. You might discover that your Salesforce backup doesn't include certain custom objects, or that restoring GitHub repos breaks CI/CD pipelines because webhooks weren't preserved. Finding these gaps in a controlled environment means you can fix them before they matter.
There's a psychological shift too. Once teams see how quickly data can be restored in a test, outages become less catastrophic. You're not scrambling to figure out if recovery is even possible. You're executing a process you've already validated.
The organizations in the HYCU report with regular testing were also the ones with clear ownership and documented procedures. Testing forces that clarity. Someone has to own the runbook, maintain the access credentials, and verify the results.
What you're really testing isn't just the technology. You're testing whether your organization can coordinate under pressure.
Please log in to add a comment.
Please log in to comment on this post.
More Posts
- © 2026 Coder Legion
- Feedback / Bug
- Privacy
- About Us
- Contacts
- You Tube
- Tiktok
- Premium Subscription
- Terms of Service
- Early Builders
That AI fluency comes from direct experience: I was one of the original six members of Google's Bard training team (now Gemini) and currently evaluate Meta's AI Business Assistant. I understand how these models work from the inside, which shapes how I write about them for a technical audience.
I specialize in LLM evaluation, prompt engineering, and RLHF methodologies, and I write about real-world implementation challenges — not theoretical possibilities. I attend major tech conferences to stay close to what developers actually face when deploying AI in production. Show less
More From Tom Smithverified
Related Jobs
- Junior Data Content OperativeNielsenIQ · Full time · Poland
- Data EngineerExasoft Pte Ltd · Full time · Singapore
- DATACOM SME (Data Communication Subject Matter Expert; all genders)NTT DATA, Inc. · Full time · United Kingdom
Commenters (This Week)
Contribute meaningful comments to climb the leaderboard and earn badges!