4 ms·

The point I was trying to make is that if I had that kind of public attitude to uptime, I'd be out of business pretty much overnight. Yeah, 100% uptime is a cr

by xd 16y ago

The point I was trying to make is that if I had that kind of public attitude to uptime, I'd be out of business pretty much overnight. Yeah, 100% uptime is a crazy notion; but something always to be strived for nonetheless.

iwwr 16y ago
To be strived for, but if you sign a SLA, nobody would be offering you 100% and tell the truth.
- xd 16y ago
  I've been seeing it offered more and more in recent years for colo ip transit. Just do a quick search for "sla 100% uptime network". Apart from one of the latest colo providers we use I've witnessed downtime with every single one that offered ip transit with a 100% SLA. That's why we use at a minimum 3 geographically distant providers. So far this approach has not let us down.
  - cagenut 16y ago
    thats because they stick in the fine print "once a month scheduled half hour outages don't count, also anything under 5 minutes doesn't count"
    - xd 16y ago
      There should be a law against that. Reminds me of the "unlimited mobile phone internet" plans here in the UK which in the fine print resolve to "fair use policy of 1GB a month) .. why can't companies just call a spade a spade.
      - Silhouette 16y ago
        > why can't companies just call a spade a spade. Slightly off-topic, but in case there's genuine curiosity there: AIUI, most of the advertising standards rulings about "fair use" policies related to Internet and particularly mobile bandwidth were made quite some time ago, when expectations were very different. It is possible that this was not entirely coincidental, and was motivated by the legal teams at major service providers who saw the current situation coming.
- timthorn 16y ago
  An SLA should specify penalties for missing the target. You can offer 100% uptime as the SLA, knowing that you'll only hit x%, but if the cost of compensating for 100-x% is less than the value of offering the SLA at 100% it's worth doing. An SLA only ever guarantees commercial remedies, not service availability.
bitwize 16y ago
Mah boiiiii, 100% uptime is what all true coders strive for.

by xd 16y ago

iwwr 16y ago

To be strived for, but if you sign a SLA, nobody would be offering you 100% and tell the truth.

xd 16y ago
I've been seeing it offered more and more in recent years for colo ip transit. Just do a quick search for "sla 100% uptime network". Apart from one of the latest colo providers we use I've witnessed downtime with every single one that offered ip transit with a 100% SLA. That's why we use at a minimum 3 geographically distant providers. So far this approach has not let us down.
- cagenut 16y ago
  thats because they stick in the fine print "once a month scheduled half hour outages don't count, also anything under 5 minutes doesn't count"
  - xd 16y ago
    There should be a law against that. Reminds me of the "unlimited mobile phone internet" plans here in the UK which in the fine print resolve to "fair use policy of 1GB a month) .. why can't companies just call a spade a spade.
    - Silhouette 16y ago
      > why can't companies just call a spade a spade. Slightly off-topic, but in case there's genuine curiosity there: AIUI, most of the advertising standards rulings about "fair use" policies related to Internet and particularly mobile bandwidth were made quite some time ago, when expectations were very different. It is possible that this was not entirely coincidental, and was motivated by the legal teams at major service providers who saw the current situation coming.
timthorn 16y ago
An SLA should specify penalties for missing the target. You can offer 100% uptime as the SLA, knowing that you'll only hit x%, but if the cost of compensating for 100-x% is less than the value of offering the SLA at 100% it's worth doing. An SLA only ever guarantees commercial remedies, not service availability.

bitwize 16y ago

Mah boiiiii, 100% uptime is what all true coders strive for.