2 ms·
Are there any large providers where the SLAs are meaningful, instead of a variation of "you don't have to pay us if we didn't provide the service" (i.e. somethi
by tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago
Are there any large providers where the SLAs are meaningful, instead of a variation of "you don't have to pay us if we didn't provide the service" (i.e. something not remotely related to the damage typically caused by such outages)?
For example, Amazon will give you a 30% refund "for the individual Included Service in the affected AWS region for the monthly billing cycle in which the Unavailability occurred" if availability during a month drops to, but not below, 95% (that's a 1.5 day downtime).
That means that if your service goes 100% down because EC2 was completely broken in a region for 1.5 days, you get a refund of 9 days worth of EC2 (compute) charges, but not the associated EBS (disk) or S3 (storage) or other charges.
And "unavailability" counts only if at least two availability zones at the same time are completely down. And then you have to request the credit in a very specific format.
Google and Azure look extremely similar.
Are better SLAs typically negotiated? Because based on this, it seems like the only thing keeping cloud providers reliably above their SLAs is the fear of losing current and future customers, not the SLAs themselves. In other words, the SLAs are completely meaningless.