4 ms·

Thanks for the expert input. This is exactly why we don't have a SLA at FathomDB, because I don't think that they're worth the paper they're written on. It se

Thanks for the expert input. This is exactly why we don't have a SLA at FathomDB, because I don't think that they're worth the paper they're written on. It seems like you almost agree (?) Most cloud providers (including FathomDB) charge by the hour anyway, so you have termination rights for any reason, and there are no prepayments to refund. We think that 'doing the right thing' is the only workable policy, and it shouldn't require an outcry from a vocal userbase. We should have handled the outage better, and we're making a big payment to demonstrate that. We're not going to let any new customers use a system where we can't be confident in its uptime (MySQL on AWS); we're building a new system in which we can be confident.

sunchild 15y ago
Dead on. I went back and re-read the article, and yes – we are in agreement. It's about doing whatever it takes to keep the relationship with your customers on an even keel. I couldn't agree more that SLAs are generally bad for customers, even though the perception is the opposite. I can't tell you how many times I've had a client demand an SLA from their vendor, and when that SLA arrives, it reads like a commitment, but actually it's impossible to fail. And these almost always are wrapped in "exclusive remedy" language, which quite literally means the customer would be better off without it. The devil is in the details. Cheers!