3 ms·
I'm surprised Peak Web isn't responsible for bugs in its suppliers stuff under the terms of the contract. After all, it picked them, and can switch to alternati
by wbl 10y ago
I'm surprised Peak Web isn't responsible for bugs in its suppliers stuff under the terms of the contract. After all, it picked them, and can switch to alternatives if they don't measure up, while the game company cannot.
- mbreese 10y agoIf they agreed to an uptime of 99.995% (~27 min/year), then that's on Peak Web. It sounds like they oversold their capabilities. For that level of uptime, they should have had much more redundancy in their engineering.
- loeg 10y agoI furiously agree with you. Peak Web failed their SLA in the first month, before the Cisco issue even cropped up: > According to Machine Zone, the hosting service couldn’t make it a month without an outage lasting almost an hour. Another in August of that year was traced to faulty cables and cooling fans, according to the publisher.
- walrus01 10y agoThe whole thing reads like peakweb are a bunch of 1+0 amateur hour "gee whiz we can be a hosting company too", and the customer wants a good reason to escape an onerous shitty contract.