5 ms·

So why do they pride themselves on a 99.9% uptime if downtime is common and normal?

by s_dev 5y ago

hoffs 5y ago
Downtime is not the same as service disruption
- macinjosh 5y ago
  huh?
  - adolph 5y ago
    A service might be unavailable due to an intentional downtime for maintenance. This is often hidden by various redundancies but certain bottlenecks may remain.
    - s_dev 5y ago
      You've just intentionally disrupted the service then.
  - bayindirh 5y ago
    You can announce downtime for a certain capacity of a service ahead of time. Which is essentially planned maintenance with some capacity hit, but when it's unplanned it's called disruption. Also, generally disruptions come with a bigger capacity loss, even if you don't lose the service outright. These terms are not limited to cloud infrastructures and not new either. Computation clusters use these terms for at least 12-13 years (from my experience) or for even longer.
- cbsks 5y ago
  Ah, you must work for Amazon ;)
ckluis 5y ago
99.9% = 8.77 hours per year Multiply that out by 1000s of providers.
WJW 5y ago
99.9% uptime is still more than 40 minutes downtime per month. According to their status page they are at 99.93% uptime for the current quarter even with the current incident.
- rjh29 5y ago
  They wait multiple hours after failure before updating their status page, so their actual uptime is lower.
  - lrem 5y ago
    The 99.9% claims is likely on the actual uptime, not on the time the status page claimed to be up.
Puts 5y ago
Uptime has nothing to do with anything in the real world. It's a number you put in an SLA of how much downtime is acceptable before they start paying you back money. And 99.9% still means 43 minutes of downtime every month. And even after that it's a calculation of risk. What does full redundancy cost vs paying back the fees for a say 24 hours of downtime? A lot of the time paying back money is way way cheaper then actually investing in technical redundancy.

So why do they pride themselves on a 99.9% uptime if downtime is common and normal?

by s_dev 5y ago

So why do they pride themselves on a 99.9% uptime if downtime is common and normal?

hoffs 5y ago

Downtime is not the same as service disruption

macinjosh 5y ago
huh?
- adolph 5y ago
  A service might be unavailable due to an intentional downtime for maintenance. This is often hidden by various redundancies but certain bottlenecks may remain.
  - s_dev 5y ago
    You've just intentionally disrupted the service then.
- bayindirh 5y ago
  You can announce downtime for a certain capacity of a service ahead of time. Which is essentially planned maintenance with some capacity hit, but when it's unplanned it's called disruption. Also, generally disruptions come with a bigger capacity loss, even if you don't lose the service outright. These terms are not limited to cloud infrastructures and not new either. Computation clusters use these terms for at least 12-13 years (from my experience) or for even longer.
cbsks 5y ago
Ah, you must work for Amazon ;)

ckluis 5y ago

99.9% = 8.77 hours per year Multiply that out by 1000s of providers.

WJW 5y ago

99.9% uptime is still more than 40 minutes downtime per month. According to their status page they are at 99.93% uptime for the current quarter even with the current incident.

rjh29 5y ago
They wait multiple hours after failure before updating their status page, so their actual uptime is lower.
- lrem 5y ago
  The 99.9% claims is likely on the actual uptime, not on the time the status page claimed to be up.

Puts 5y ago

Uptime has nothing to do with anything in the real world. It's a number you put in an SLA of how much downtime is acceptable before they start paying you back money. And 99.9% still means 43 minutes of downtime every month. And even after that it's a calculation of risk. What does full redundancy cost vs paying back the fees for a say 24 hours of downtime? A lot of the time paying back money is way way cheaper then actually investing in technical redundancy.