3 ms·
> 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 Thats not the goa
by vineyardmike 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
Thats not the goal.
> 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
Thats the goal. The "status page" is considered the source of truth for most of the big contracts. If status-page=OK then your contract with them isn't violated. So changing the status page is a big deal, with real financial implications. The status page isn't a view into the SRE's tickets, its a declaration that the service isn't being provided.
- mattclarkdotnet 4y agoUtter rubbish. Major contracts have account managers and it all gets hashed out 1-1.
- squeaky-clean 4y agoDon't know why this was downvoted. We've definitely been able to provide proof of an outage when the status page showed otherwise and get a refund in the form of server credits by contacting them directly. For all 3 big vendors, AWS, Azure, GCP
- RajT88 4y agoAgree here as well. It's usually not that hard to provide based on the many, many metrics Azure resources emit that their SLA was breached. What might be happening is that there is fine print you have to read and be in compliance with in order to be eligible for the SLA. For example, look at all the conditions which have to be met for a breach of VM SLA in Azure: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/support/legal/sla/virtual-machines/v1_9/ https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/support/legal/sla/virtual-... Hidden in the SLA details is typically hints on how you can become more resilient in the cloud. So it pays to read the SLA details and really deeply understand what they are telling you.