Adam Bower wrote:
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 02:18:43PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Fine, you can class a service being unavailable as downtime, but it's not what provider contracts or most review sites class as downtime in my experience, so it doesn't really achieve anything except pointless flames.
Sorry, it isn't flaming it's reality. I'd love to be able to get away with telling our customers that downtime is OK because the host was still up.
I feel it's flaming. If it's reality, please post your contract terms that define downtime to include IMAP service being unavailable.
Hearing it wasn't all in one lump is good but I'd be concerned that your service doesn't appear to offer any kind of redundancy.
There are multiple levels of redundancy. If you read earlier messages, you'd know it was a disk in a *Redundant* Array of Independent Disks that was disruptive. The co-op has other servers which could have been switched in, but we decided that it was better to find and fix the fault, then do a properly-planned upgrade.
Bottom line: we're completely open about this with our customers, but number of comments on this: zero; proportion of customers hosted on that server renewing: 100%. The only people who seem to care are LUG power users who I doubt would ever be using the co-op's starter hosting instead of running their hosting themselves in some way.
Regards,