5 ms·

It's because none of these companies are held responsible for missing their actual SLAs, as opposed to their self-reported SLA compliance. So unless regulation

It's because none of these companies are held responsible for missing their actual SLAs, as opposed to their self-reported SLA compliance. So unless regulation gets implemented that says otherwise, there's zero incentive for any company to maintain an accurate status page.

iso1210 5y ago
The only uptimes I'm concerned with are my own services that my own monitoring keeps on top of, this varies - if the monitoring page goes down for 10 seconds I'm not worried, if one leg of a smpte-2022-7 is down for a second that's fine, if it keeps going down for a second that's a concern, etc. If something I'm responsible goes down to the point that my stakeholders are complaining (which is something seriously wrong), they are not going to be happy with "oh the cloud was down, not my fault" If AWS is down or not it meaningless to me, if my service running on AWS is down or not is the key metric. If a service is down and I can't get into it, then chatter on things like outages mailing list, or HN, will let me know if it's yet another cloud failure, or if it's something that's affecting my machine only.
xtracto 5y ago
>It's because none of these companies are held responsible for missing their actual SLAs, as opposed to their self-reported SLA compliance. Right, there should be an "alliance" of customers from different large providers (something like a Union but instead of workers, it would be customers). They are the ones that should measure SLAs and hold the provider accountable.
soheil 5y ago
How did you find a way to bring regulations into this? There are monitoring services you can pay for to keep an eye on your SLAs and your vendors'. If not happy with the results switch.
- ybloviator 5y ago
  Technically, there are already regulations. SLA lies are fraud. But I'm leery of any business who's so dishonest they fear any outside oversight that brings repercussions for said dishonesty. "If not happy, switch" is silly - it's not the customer's problem. And if you're a large customer and have invested heavily in getting staff trained on AWS, you can't just move.
  - soheil 5y ago
    A) don't build a business that relies solely on existence of another B) switch to another vendor if not happy with current vendor Really not that complicated.
cwkoss 5y ago
I wonder if there could be profitable play where an organization monitors SLA compliance, and then produces a batch of lawsuits or class action suit on behalf of all of its members when the SLA is violated.
- pm90 5y ago
  This is a neat idea. Install a simple agent in all customers' environments, select AWS dependencies, then monitor uptime over time. Aggregate across customers, and then go to AWS with this data.

iso1210 5y ago

The only uptimes I'm concerned with are my own services that my own monitoring keeps on top of, this varies - if the monitoring page goes down for 10 seconds I'm not worried, if one leg of a smpte-2022-7 is down for a second that's fine, if it keeps going down for a second that's a concern, etc. If something I'm responsible goes down to the point that my stakeholders are complaining (which is something seriously wrong), they are not going to be happy with "oh the cloud was down, not my fault" If AWS is down or not it meaningless to me, if my service running on AWS is down or not is the key metric. If a service is down and I can't get into it, then chatter on things like outages mailing list, or HN, will let me know if it's yet another cloud failure, or if it's something that's affecting my machine only.

xtracto 5y ago

>It's because none of these companies are held responsible for missing their actual SLAs, as opposed to their self-reported SLA compliance. Right, there should be an "alliance" of customers from different large providers (something like a Union but instead of workers, it would be customers). They are the ones that should measure SLAs and hold the provider accountable.

soheil 5y ago

How did you find a way to bring regulations into this? There are monitoring services you can pay for to keep an eye on your SLAs and your vendors'. If not happy with the results switch.

ybloviator 5y ago
Technically, there are already regulations. SLA lies are fraud. But I'm leery of any business who's so dishonest they fear any outside oversight that brings repercussions for said dishonesty. "If not happy, switch" is silly - it's not the customer's problem. And if you're a large customer and have invested heavily in getting staff trained on AWS, you can't just move.
- soheil 5y ago
  A) don't build a business that relies solely on existence of another B) switch to another vendor if not happy with current vendor Really not that complicated.

cwkoss 5y ago

I wonder if there could be profitable play where an organization monitors SLA compliance, and then produces a batch of lawsuits or class action suit on behalf of all of its members when the SLA is violated.

pm90 5y ago
This is a neat idea. Install a simple agent in all customers' environments, select AWS dependencies, then monitor uptime over time. Aggregate across customers, and then go to AWS with this data.