Re: [cobalt-users] 99.9% revisited...

[Kris Dahl <krislists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 5/10/00 5:03 PM, Jeff Lasman at jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Kris Dahl wrote:
> 
>> You're still at 99.7% on a year, even after 28 hours of downtime.  And
>> that's a lot of downtime.  99.9% is not hard to offer.
> 
> It happened two nights in a row.  Why couldn't it happen two more nights
> in a row?
> 
> And I "offer 99.9%"; I just don't guarantee it.
> 
> I can't afford to go an entire month with all my customers getting
> service for free.

My point is that if you buy from a reputable carrier or datacenter and
invest in adequate reliability and accessibility features, there is no way
that you should have any less than 99.9% (8 hours per year).

This is one reason why people don't usually host on low-cost DSL lines.  No
one is going to be in a hurry to fix your problems.

If I do hosting at the new job here, I we are going to be charging a premium
for our premium services.  We'll be charging enough to cover any potential
losses.

>>> While this was a problem with DSL it could easily have been with a T-1;
>>> even with a T-3.
>> 
>> Well, if you are spending $1000+ dollars a month with them, they hustle a
>> little bit more.  This is from experience.  If you buy a commercial grade
>> DSL line from like Savvis, they guarantee your connection.  And they have
>> the private peering to back that up.  Of course you're not talking about
>> $100/mo, either.  If I remember correctly a 1MB DSL line from them (not the
>> line, but the access) was around $700/mo.
> 
> I won't argue this.  I'll just let all the horror stories I continue to
> read do it for me.  Do you really think this won't happen with a T-1 or
> even a T-3?  I don't.

Which is why it important to co-locate in a datacenter.

There are very few companies that it doesn't make sense to co-locate.

 
> And you know as well as I do that Savvis doesn't guarantee your lost
> income.

While this is true, the point is that the more money you spend, typically
the more 'critical'.  When Savvis gets on the horn to UUNet because their
private peering OC3 is TU, UUNet listens.
 
>>> Now you see why I give my best efforts, but don't GUARANTEE uptime?
>> 
>> Well... You you have to be positioned to be able to offer it.  When I was
>> saying that it is easy to get a 99.9%, and 99.99% isn't that much harder, I
>> was assuming you would be in a high-grade commercial datacenter with
>> redundant routes and private peering arrangements, adequate UPS and
>> generator power, etc.
> 
> I do host in a high-grade commercial datacenter with redundant routes
> and private peering arrangements, through FroGlo, Level 3, and Savvis.
> And we've got adequte power backup, as well.
> 
> I just don't believe in technology enough to guarantee it.

Like I said, it comes down to what you are trying to do.  I am not trying to
accommodate lower-end services (meaning dollar wise, more than anything).  I
only want to offer premium services and a premium charge.  Do warrant the
additional expense some customers will want a guarantee.  What is really
happening is that they are essentially buying a bond that will be
distributed if there is ever a downtime.

I know enough about how this system works that I can say with some
confidence that I can keep unscheduled maintenance (or even scheduled) down
to less than 9 hours per year.  To us it would be worth the risk.  Of course
we only would be hosting about 30 clients max, but they would each be paying
several hundred a month in hosting fees.

The model doesn't necessarily work on customers that are paying less than
$30/mo.  Honestly, those customers want everything in the world
(performance, reliability, etc.) but aren't willing to pay for it.  And
there is no room in that target market for premium services.  Perhaps if
they bump their service up to the 'Super-terrific Platinum Package' with
additional bandwidth perhaps, and they start spending $100 a month it may be
worth it.

It all comes down to target market in business model.

>> You can't really offer that kind of guarantee on a DSL line.  Or really even
>> a T1 line (although I feel I could easily guarantee 99.9%).
>> 
>> And its not like I would make that guarantee for free--the service would be
>> at a premium (as I wouldn't want to attract lower-end clients).  But you
>> can, if you make the effort (and charge the premium) offer 4 nines
>> guaranteed.  But only do it if your target market requires it and you get
>> something out of it (i.e. more money--at least enough to cover the
>> penalties).  Its all about the Benjamins.
> 
> As I've said, I don't think you ever get enough out of it to cover the
> penalties.  Ask the Chicago Board of Trade; they were down weeks as I
> recall.  How much money did they get out of it?

I am not familiar with the CBOT problems.  But I would be concerned that
they didn't have the following:
*datacenter that has fire, virtually unlimited power protection
*private peering arrangements with dynamic routing, etc. from several
different providers
*light one on fire type load-balancing server clusters

Barring an earthquake or natural disaster (and even then I wonder) there is
no earthly reason why they should be down for weeks.

If the services are important to you it is worth investing in the
infrastructure.  If CBOT didn't invest in the above mentioned items, then
they got what they paid for, and I have no sympathy for them.

-k