6 ms·
It's updated now - updates for service outages at this level generally need signoff form someone higher up the chain
by edf13 4y ago
It's updated now - updates for service outages at this level generally need signoff form someone higher up the chain
- alkonaut 4y agoBut shouldn't the individual service dots be automatically turning another color than green? I mean it's an automated service status page, right? Whether there is a human message at the top and that can take some time I understand.
- luckylion 4y agoNo, it's not automated. I'm sure the underlying tech is automated, but once companies grow beyond a certain size, it needs a human to say "show this status change to the world" because there are lots of things depending on it (e.g. SLAs, but also bonuses, I assume), so they don't want a potential bug in the status system to influence that. It's weird how slow they are with manual sign-off though.
- adql 4y agoI haven't seen any SLA deal that says the status page must show 99.9% uptime...
- cm2187 4y agoNo but if msft’s own status page shows downtime more than 0.01% of the time msft will struggle to argue they haven’t breached their SLA, so financial consequences to the company.
- alkonaut 4y agoBut I don’t want the page connected to their bonuses or SLA’s I just want to know whether they are having any issues anywhere. And I need to know within a minute of my own service not working so I’m not chasing the wrong thing. This can’t be an unreasonable thing to ask for?
- luckylion 4y agoI agree. I'm already annoyed at Hetzner with their 5 minute lag in reporting network outages where I'm regularly noticing them, investigating, checking status and then only after a few minutes see them updating and saying "it's us". If you work with Microsoft, you might as well spend a few bucks extra and have an external monitoring system monitor Microsoft's systems so you get real-time third-party confirmation when your monitoring alerts you of issues concerning your system. It's the price you pay for scale, I guess. More money involved = more lawyers involved = more accountants involved = more MBAs involved = more corporate bullshit.
- copperroof 4y agoAn automated one would be red 100% the time.
- saghm 4y agoSomeone has to "approve" the status pages showing what's actually happening? From a customer perspective, it seems far worse to have status pages fail to reflect actual outages than to have them accidentally report an outage when there isn't one because no one really cares about what the status page says if they're not having issues. It's hard to see how the goal here could be anything other than trying to add plausible deniability for what would otherwise be obvious deception.
- oefrha 4y agoExec approval for showing major outages on status dashboard is pretty much standard practice across large companies. The main differentiator is whether it’s approved within five minutes or two hours.
- remus 4y ago> it seems far worse to have status pages fail to reflect actual outages than to have them accidentally report an outage when there isn't one because no one really cares about what the status page says if they're not having issues. I disagree. What if you're having issues and the status page is incorrectly reporting an incident? It would be easy to waste a load of time waiting for the status page to sort itself out, only to find out you've still got an issue.
- UK-AL 4y agoYou can't approve a fact.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y agowell.... if that fact can be delayed by just a tiny bit... that's enough
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y agoAs others noted, the so-called "status" pages of big service providers don't serve to reflect reality but to shape it. For actual status you need to consult independent monitoring services.
- 4y ago
- steve1977 4y agoMaybe they couldn't update the status page due to the network outage. I'm joking, but...
- 867-5309 4y agoor, they could be automated and transparent
- nikau 4y agoThen some group scrapes the uptime of their competitors page and reports that "competitor is x times more reliable than transparent co"