4 ms·
No, they shouldn't. In many instances it's cheaper to tolerate downtime than to pay to avoid it, especially when there's no SLA involved.
by tomnipotent 4y ago
No, they shouldn't. In many instances it's cheaper to tolerate downtime than to pay to avoid it, especially when there's no SLA involved.
- treeman79 4y agoMost of the time. If heroku is having downtime. Then Amazon is having downtime. Then half the internet is down. Let customers know Amazon is down. Sit back and relax.
- tomnipotent 4y agoUptime isn't an axiom. Most software isn't mission critical and most users won't notice if it's down for 30 minutes once or twice a month, and for everything else we have SLA's to manage professional expectations.
- nosvince 4y agoWow, that's a horrible way of thinking about the user experience. And honestly, I'm not surprised. That's why companies that really care about the user experience will always steal market share from those that don't.
- neojebfkekeej 4y agoIt’s actually small companies that care about user experience that will often make these trade-offs. Less time managing multi-cloud deployments means more time spent building our core product and talking to users.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- strken 4y agoOn the one hand, yeah it sucks. On the other hand, my local ice-cream shop was closed for 30 minutes last week because the owner was doing something and the staff member who was rostered on was out sick. If your online business is at the same level of profit and necessity as an ice-cream shop, it can probably close for 30 minutes once or twice a year.