6 ms·

We have two people who handle all our infrastructure. We still needed two people available to handle all our Azure infrastructure even though they'd spend less

by pling 12y ago

We have two people who handle all our infrastructure. We still needed two people available to handle all our Azure infrastructure even though they'd spend less time doing things (N+1 failover). Also Microsoft doesn't give a shit if you're down past a status page and profuse apologising and perhaps a pro-rata refund if you complain like a bitch and wave a big "fuck you, AWS next time" at your licensing contact. That's not how to do business. Our guys actually get up at 2AM and drive to the DC and fix shit if it goes wrong, which it inevitably does (less often than Azure I will say). Downtime costs you more in reputation than you can gain from the cost savings of not having your whole world under your control.

chton 12y ago
You should read up on the SLA. If you need more assurance than Azure can offer (or any cloud host, since statistically Azure has one of the best uptimes), you shouldn't have tried it in the first place. I don't know who sold you Azure as a solution to your hosting, but whoever did it didn't take enough time to investigate your case. This comment and your others show that your requirements and architecture aren't a good match for a cloud host.
- pling 12y ago
  Well we were stuck in this... http://blogs.gartner.com/kyle-hilgendorf/2012/03/09/azure-outage-customer-insights-a-week-later/ http://blogs.gartner.com/kyle-hilgendorf/2012/03/09/azure-ou... The SLA would have been fine if it was accurate, which it wasn't.
  - chton 12y ago
    As were we, and MS has learned a lot since then. The SLA has improved and become more strict, and they've improved communications since then. There is still a ways to go, but that's true of all hosts. It's important to note though that an SLA for any host isn't a strict guarantee. Almost all are set up on the best-effort-with-refunds-if-we-fail principle. They're promises, not hard lines. MS does not have a habit of failing to deliver on their promised number, but like any other host it can happen. These are important things to remember when considering a hosting model.

by pling 12y ago

chton 12y ago

You should read up on the SLA. If you need more assurance than Azure can offer (or any cloud host, since statistically Azure has one of the best uptimes), you shouldn't have tried it in the first place. I don't know who sold you Azure as a solution to your hosting, but whoever did it didn't take enough time to investigate your case. This comment and your others show that your requirements and architecture aren't a good match for a cloud host.

pling 12y ago
Well we were stuck in this... http://blogs.gartner.com/kyle-hilgendorf/2012/03/09/azure-outage-customer-insights-a-week-later/ http://blogs.gartner.com/kyle-hilgendorf/2012/03/09/azure-ou... The SLA would have been fine if it was accurate, which it wasn't.
- chton 12y ago
  As were we, and MS has learned a lot since then. The SLA has improved and become more strict, and they've improved communications since then. There is still a ways to go, but that's true of all hosts. It's important to note though that an SLA for any host isn't a strict guarantee. Almost all are set up on the best-effort-with-refunds-if-we-fail principle. They're promises, not hard lines. MS does not have a habit of failing to deliver on their promised number, but like any other host it can happen. These are important things to remember when considering a hosting model.