Adam Bower wrote:
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 12:58:23AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
No, the above figure is email service *availability* (which seemed most relevant here) and not the host *uptime* which most sites state publicly - that's 99.96% and the 2h downtime so far was mostly due to a disk changeover and testing.
I did read that and I have parsed it correctly, if the service isn't available it's down. Therefore, it is what I would class as downtime, if my email wasn't accessible for 2 days this year (potentially in one lump!, this isn't clear) I'd be looking at other options. If the non-availability was a few minutes here and there then it's not so bad.
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.
The unavailability was intermittent but scattered over some days while the fault was isolated progressively.
I doubt one of the more expert LUGgers would use managed starter hosting anyway. It's just a baseline.
Any of the other providers like to post their uptime and IMAP availability?
Regards,