This is of course expensive for any provider for every customer. Ideally if we have continuous streaming backing up a node, then when the host machine failed a second machine can pick up to serve the last backup. so where else should they host their own server? Home? Some prefer to host outside of Google or Amazon's power. Some people run their email server on these budget IaaS. You seem to think every business has a budget for a big contract with DO or Amazon or Google. That way we can proactively notify people affected by a particular problem, as well as continuing to list even small problems publicly. So even for a minor problem - broken switch, VM host machine, power failure in a rack, that's worth listing from my point of view.Īs I said above I'm looking to tie our databases and some basic network monitoring into it this year. If we keep updating as we promise, bang, that's one support call (at most) per affected customer. making sure we list something ASAP.īut status pages are still very useful once people start calling in - support can positively identify that yes, you are affected by this problem and you can track progress at that URL. and we do our best to make sure that people can identify their problem, if nothing else than by timing, i.e. That sometimes involves knowing that their server is in a particular data centre, or that it is connected to a particular switch, etc. While we've listed every outage affecting >1 customer since 2004 on our status page, the issue is always expressing each outage in a way that allows a customer to identify that _their_ server is affected by a particular entry. Customers expect to find the answer to the question "did I do something wrong, or are you having problems?" on the status page. As an infrastructure provider, I disagree.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |