3 ms·
> Less than 100% reliability is essential for the sustainability Less than 100% reliability is going to be mandatory as part of the degrowth we'll need if we w
by rakoo 5y ago
> Less than 100% reliability is essential for the sustainability
Less than 100% reliability is going to be mandatory as part of the degrowth we'll need if we want to seriously tackle climate change. Less reliability, all the way towards offline-first, is the most sensible way to go
- Juliate 5y agoActually, you can achieve 100% reliability with any kind or extent of downtime. As long as downtime is expected and bounded, as long as the uptime planned period is actually up, you're at 100% reliability (but not 100% uptime).
- rakoo 5y agoI think you're being pedantic over the meaning of words; true, a website that announces being up 1 minute per year and is up 1 minute per year is 100% reliable. But in common discussions, reliable really means "up and running". Now, maybe you're right and we should be using another word, and aim towards less uptime ?
- Juliate 5y agoWell, maybe that's pedantic, but reliability has a precise meaning that means hard money through service level agreements. So yes, it's worth it to be specific over the difference between being available and being reliable (== meeting expectations, including being unavailable at times). If I claim a 99.5% uptime SLA guarantee for my webservice and that it does, it's reliable. However, 0.5% of the time, it may be unavailable _and that's not an issue_.