4 ms·

When can we move beyond blaming a cloud service and just owning up to the decision? Soluto chose to use Azure and knew they were taking a risk. It's their fau

by niggler 14y ago

When can we move beyond blaming a cloud service and just owning up to the decision? Soluto chose to use Azure and knew they were taking a risk. It's their fault for choosing to use Azure, and unless they signed for a 100.000000000% uptime guarantee (which I'm sure they didn't, given no one would give such a guarantee) they have to own up to any faults. This extends to those services that blames AWS as well. It's not a good habit, and customers (like we saw with netflix) don't care -- all they know is that their service is down.

roee 14y ago
No one's "blaming" anyone. The expectancy is that cloud providers work their asses off to fix stuff that gets broken, which is the case.
- niggler 14y ago
  "Our service is down because Azure is down" definitely sounds like scapegoating (regardless of whether it is the case, Soluto should have a contingency plan)
  - roee 14y ago
    That's not scapegoating, it's pointing at facts. Sad as they are. When you have a complex web service, you rely on a provider. That provider can go down sometimes, and it takes you with it. Again I'll point to Netflix and AWS, they waited until AWS were back up, they didn't "restore a backup" somewhere else.
    - PommeDeTerre 14y ago
      It wouldn't be scapegoating if their site was still up and their service still functioning, hosted by some alternate provider, for example. But since their site and service aren't up, I think it can be seen as scapegoating.
Avalaxy 14y ago
Azure offers a SLA with a 99,95% uptime guarantee for computing instances and a 99,9% uptime SLA for storage. If they do not meet this SLA you will get your money back. You can read more about it at www.windowsazure.com/en-us/support/legal/sla/
- cmccabe 14y ago
  SLAs are worthless, because just getting your money back does nothing to repair the damage to your business. It's like if someone in your family died from food poisioning and the restaurant gave you back your $10 for lunch.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- taylodl 14y ago
  They've already blown that SLA - for the year. Now how much of my money do I get back?
  - Avalaxy 14y ago
    All of it I think?

by niggler 14y ago

roee 14y ago

No one's "blaming" anyone. The expectancy is that cloud providers work their asses off to fix stuff that gets broken, which is the case.

niggler 14y ago
"Our service is down because Azure is down" definitely sounds like scapegoating (regardless of whether it is the case, Soluto should have a contingency plan)
- roee 14y ago
  That's not scapegoating, it's pointing at facts. Sad as they are. When you have a complex web service, you rely on a provider. That provider can go down sometimes, and it takes you with it. Again I'll point to Netflix and AWS, they waited until AWS were back up, they didn't "restore a backup" somewhere else.
  - PommeDeTerre 14y ago
    It wouldn't be scapegoating if their site was still up and their service still functioning, hosted by some alternate provider, for example. But since their site and service aren't up, I think it can be seen as scapegoating.

Avalaxy 14y ago

Azure offers a SLA with a 99,95% uptime guarantee for computing instances and a 99,9% uptime SLA for storage. If they do not meet this SLA you will get your money back. You can read more about it at www.windowsazure.com/en-us/support/legal/sla/

cmccabe 14y ago
SLAs are worthless, because just getting your money back does nothing to repair the damage to your business. It's like if someone in your family died from food poisioning and the restaurant gave you back your $10 for lunch.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
taylodl 14y ago
They've already blown that SLA - for the year. Now how much of my money do I get back?
- Avalaxy 14y ago
  All of it I think?