Ah, glad I didn&#x27;t presume it was a valid message! I&#x27;ve heard people joke about this kind of thing exactly this way in the past.<p>But now my &quot;technical breakdown info&quot; box has no tidbits in it. :P<p>I&#x27;m glad you&#x27;re back up now (sortakinda - what sort of traffic are you sustaining right now? :D), but a rough idea of what asploded would be really cool to know about.<p>Speaking of which, I&#x27;d like to take a moment to make a strong point about the fact that disaster-recovery situations don&#x27;t get blogged about enough. Vague &quot;we fixed it&quot; datapoints get buried in status update logs like it&#x27;s something to hide and hope nobody brings up.<p>In situations like these, the only constructive perspective is for everyone to accept that something went horribly wrong and not make a fuss about it, and if such a mentality can be established, this creates an environment within which we can share technical breakdowns of &quot;we found ourselves in XYZ position and then we did these thirty highly specific things in heroically record time to be up and running again&quot;, and I think sharing this type of info would potentially be more educational than setup tutorials or the &quot;we switched to X and it improved Y by 1400%&quot; type things the Net&#x27;s full of. Sure, you&#x27;d have to generalize and probably give a lot of backstory about infrastructure, but it&#x27;s becoming trendy (in a sense) for companies to describe their operations in precisely this way, so it&#x27;s not completely nonviable.<p>(Note my use of the angle of &quot;we found ourselves in XYZ position&quot; - maybe a small highlight of what led up to the disaster would be included (worth considering if the information would be educational), maybe not. In a blog context, moderating comments to keep the discussion on-track and constructive may be necessary, but IMO would be worth it.)