11 ms·

It could be interesting to track the uptime of such cloud services. Two decades ago, companies prided themselves with 4 or 5 nines (99.99% uptime). Not anymore.

It could be interesting to track the uptime of such cloud services. Two decades ago, companies prided themselves with 4 or 5 nines (99.99% uptime). Not anymore. Worse is better won yet again ;-) Companies and programmers should be aware what they get into when they build such dependencies. Distributed git is a thing, but distributed CI/CD that you could also run locally isn't (yet?).

Aeolun 5y ago
The fact that it’s down is not the problem, but it’s painful that there’s nothing I can do to fix it. That’s the part I like about self hosting. It may ultimately be down more often, but I never have to tell someone “Nothing to be done, we wait.”.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  Which is better for you, but for your company, "wait, I'm on it" and "wait, they're on it" does not make a world of difference. What's better, on the other hand, is that you can schedule expected and possible downtimes to a time that causes the least impact to your company; with a SaaS, an update might cause you problems any time.
  - blacktriangle 5y ago
    You're second point exactly nails it. Hosted solutions break because they're busying pushing new features I may or may not care about. When self hosting I can decide when upgrading is worthwhile to my needs and then plan when to make risky actions according to my own organizations time line. Any single org can probably get away with 90% uptime just so long as the downtime is at the correct time.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    While I sort of agree, I guess that’s that’s arguable. My bosses really like telling theirs that we are doing something about it too. In these kinds of situations, you often end up in a situation where they say ‘the problem is resolving itself in region x’, where region x is not relevant to you at all. If you are fixing your own setup you can focus on exactly what is most important (to you) first.

Aeolun 5y ago

The fact that it’s down is not the problem, but it’s painful that there’s nothing I can do to fix it. That’s the part I like about self hosting. It may ultimately be down more often, but I never have to tell someone “Nothing to be done, we wait.”.

Sebb767 5y ago
Which is better for you, but for your company, "wait, I'm on it" and "wait, they're on it" does not make a world of difference. What's better, on the other hand, is that you can schedule expected and possible downtimes to a time that causes the least impact to your company; with a SaaS, an update might cause you problems any time.
- blacktriangle 5y ago
  You're second point exactly nails it. Hosted solutions break because they're busying pushing new features I may or may not care about. When self hosting I can decide when upgrading is worthwhile to my needs and then plan when to make risky actions according to my own organizations time line. Any single org can probably get away with 90% uptime just so long as the downtime is at the correct time.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  While I sort of agree, I guess that’s that’s arguable. My bosses really like telling theirs that we are doing something about it too. In these kinds of situations, you often end up in a situation where they say ‘the problem is resolving itself in region x’, where region x is not relevant to you at all. If you are fixing your own setup you can focus on exactly what is most important (to you) first.