3 ms·
If 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
by mbreese 10y ago
If 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.