4 ms·
Agreed, and lying is never a great idea. But you also specifically noted that you do not invest in the kind of solutions that help ensure better uptime stats. A
by wgj 17y ago
Agreed, and lying is never a great idea. But you also specifically noted that you do not invest in the kind of solutions that help ensure better uptime stats. And other sites that have failover and other HA techniques are not making empty promises. They are showing that they intend to try harder, and your blog post so much as admits they really do try harder (with more expensive architecture, and the willingness to be penalized on failure.)
So, regardless of the icing on the cake, you seek customers who do not rely on uptime. That's a valid choice, and I mean no disrespect. I'm just calling it what it is.
- nkohari 17y agoI suppose you're right. We felt that it was more worthwhile to price our services lower and avoid going overboard with HA, because our application is arguably not "mission-critical". If it's down for awhile, it's bad, but no one dies and money is probably not lost (at least not a lot). The investments we do make in infrastructure are geared more towards disaster recovery, because if we went down and lost our customers' data, it would be a much more critical failure on our part.
- wgj 17y agoEmphasize low cost then. That's a great selling point. But it's not reasonable to say SLAs are hollow. It detracts from your offering.