Using OVH for backups is a crazy choice.

They had a datacenter burn down (in large part because it was fully built using wood) and lost all customer data and did not take any action for 6 months after the incident.

They're just not a serious company.

This is borderline adversarial propaganda.

While the incident did happen, a lot of actions were taken and most of the data was recovered. OVH now also keeps backups even for clients that don't pay for it.

I was hit by that datacenter catastrophe and got my data back almost immediately, in a new VM.

I've been using them for years with little issue (no more than happened on my AWS or Azure accounts, I would say less because it's less of a mess in general).

Stop spreading false rumors.

It's fine to have an unstable backup system, as long as any failures in your backups are uncorrelated with failures in your primary system. And a random datacentre burning down probably isn't correlated with anything else, unless you're foolish enough to host your primary and backup copies in the same building.

All else equal, a more stable backup is of course better, but any backup is better than no backups, so choosing the cheapest possible option is often the best strategy since that's the one that you're the most likely to keep using long-term.

Any source for this? Would love to read up on this.

It's important to distinguish between a backup strategy and a backup location. A real backup strategy would involve multiple locations (3-2-1 etc)

I've been dabbling with OVH and it feels very pricey and fragile. Has a very lipstick on a pig approach to whatever they used to be doing before piling into cloud.