3 ms·
That's 99.97 for the last month. Which is ridiculous, 9s for most services use years as standard. Of course if heroku did that they wouldn't look so good.
by andrewvc 14y ago
That's 99.97 for the last month.
Which is ridiculous, 9s for most services use years as standard. Of course if heroku did that they wouldn't look so good.
- andrewcooke 14y agoif you have a year of 99.97 months, don't you have a 99.97 year? how does having a shorter time make the numbers look better? [edit: i realise they could be hiding worse months, but i don't think that's what the post i am replying to meant. perhaps i am reading it wrong.]
- hboon 14y agoThey could have terrible uptime 2 months ago and you wouldn't see it in their status page, because it only showed last month's.
- mparlane 14y agoDepends on the month... 31 versus 28 days.
- veemjeem 14y agoThey could have done it to the extreme -- show the numbers for the past hour. Then they could almost always report 100% uptime. And if they ever went down, wait an hour, then go back to reporting 100% uptime again.
- jaggederest 14y agoParent post was saying that, without taking into account the entire year, you can have one month that is terrible and the rest quite good. The measurement in question is supposed to be about consistency.
- alaithea 14y agoIt doesn't matter whether gauged by the month or year. It's a percentage. If they have 99.97% uptime every month for a year, they'll still have 99.97% uptime for the year.
- wmf 14y agoOr if they have 100% for six months and then 99.97% for one month the long-term average would be better.