4 ms·

Every time this kind of thing happens HNers love to grip about how the status pages aren't correct yet. It's so weird -- like the people freaking out about the

by ajkjk 6y ago

Every time this kind of thing happens HNers love to grip about how the status pages aren't correct yet. It's so weird -- like the people freaking out about the outage are going to be updating their uptime trackers right now or something. Who cares? It'll be fixed later.

Merman_Mike 6y ago
I think the point is that a "Status Page" should show the accurate, current status of the system. Not a place holder for "we'll fix it later". People look at a status page to know what's happening now.
- ajkjk 6y ago
  I wasn't talking about the status page, I was talking about the uptime % tracker. edit: oh, sorry, i did say 'status page' in the first part. But I kinda meant update % tracker like the parent.
  - ric2b 6y ago
    Enterprise contracts have SLA's about uptime, so it's definitely relevant.
blibble 6y ago
what's the point in a status page that only updates after the outage has been resolved?
- pluto9 6y ago
  It doesn't. The status page is currently showing information about the outage. And the 100% uptime number is probably still correct, since it's only been out for a couple of hours.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    > And the 100% uptime number is probably still correct, since it's only been out for a couple of hours. It's listed as "Uptime for the current quarter"; if they mean that as "calendar quarter", i.e. since the start of the year, then we aren't even 100 hours into the quarter so we should be well below 100% by now.
    - pluto9 6y ago
      Fair point.
    - hunter2_ 6y ago
      You might be correct, but why would anyone care about quarter-to-date as opposed to a rolling quarter ending now? The latter would mean that an outage of X duration will always reduce this statistic by the same amount regardless of how close the nearest calendar quarter boundary is, which seems like a superior quality for such a statistic to have.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
        That would be a completely fair metric to publish, but it doesn't look like what Slack is publishing. Of course, it's possible that it is and it's just phrased somewhat poorly.
michaelt 6y ago
Well, who consults a service's status page when it isn't down? During an outage is literally the only time a service status page has any function. A status page that doesn't get updated during an outage is about as much use as a solar-powered flashlight (without built in power storage).
mumblemumble 6y ago
This is entirely in line with my experience dealing with outages. 85% of the time to fix consists of fielding requests for status updates. It's like when people push the elevator button repeatedly if it's taking a while to arrive, only pushing the elevator button doesn't cause it to take even longer.

by ajkjk 6y ago

Merman_Mike 6y ago

I think the point is that a "Status Page" should show the accurate, current status of the system. Not a place holder for "we'll fix it later". People look at a status page to know what's happening now.

ajkjk 6y ago
I wasn't talking about the status page, I was talking about the uptime % tracker. edit: oh, sorry, i did say 'status page' in the first part. But I kinda meant update % tracker like the parent.
- ric2b 6y ago
  Enterprise contracts have SLA's about uptime, so it's definitely relevant.

blibble 6y ago

what's the point in a status page that only updates after the outage has been resolved?

pluto9 6y ago
It doesn't. The status page is currently showing information about the outage. And the 100% uptime number is probably still correct, since it's only been out for a couple of hours.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  > And the 100% uptime number is probably still correct, since it's only been out for a couple of hours. It's listed as "Uptime for the current quarter"; if they mean that as "calendar quarter", i.e. since the start of the year, then we aren't even 100 hours into the quarter so we should be well below 100% by now.
  - pluto9 6y ago
    Fair point.
  - hunter2_ 6y ago
    You might be correct, but why would anyone care about quarter-to-date as opposed to a rolling quarter ending now? The latter would mean that an outage of X duration will always reduce this statistic by the same amount regardless of how close the nearest calendar quarter boundary is, which seems like a superior quality for such a statistic to have.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
      That would be a completely fair metric to publish, but it doesn't look like what Slack is publishing. Of course, it's possible that it is and it's just phrased somewhat poorly.

michaelt 6y ago

Well, who consults a service's status page when it isn't down? During an outage is literally the only time a service status page has any function. A status page that doesn't get updated during an outage is about as much use as a solar-powered flashlight (without built in power storage).

mumblemumble 6y ago

This is entirely in line with my experience dealing with outages. 85% of the time to fix consists of fielding requests for status updates. It's like when people push the elevator button repeatedly if it's taking a while to arrive, only pushing the elevator button doesn't cause it to take even longer.