|
Post by scooter on Jul 28, 2007 22:17:56 GMT -4
I'll do my best to be patient...see ya in a bit BAUT...
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 29, 2007 0:34:38 GMT -4
If it results in an improved service it's a good thing. My definition of "improved service" includes "up" The uptime experienced by Phil's host is a lot closer to 100% than it is 0%. I would rather hope for better than 50% According to this site BadAstronomy's host has an uptime rating of 99.46%, measured between April 2006 and July 2007 (although it doesn't take into account today's downtime). Hey, what you like is up to you, but that's not a couple of hours a year, that's several hours a month. Is comparison to WalMart really the right thing to do here? If your heat goes off in the winter only 10 hours a day, but WalMart is closed 12 hours, you won't complain? In the world of websites, I don't think an hour a week (which is what the figure you cite comes to) is real good...it's down almost three times as much as yours. But, BAUT would probably have to go down a lot more than one hour a week before I noticed
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 29, 2007 2:05:56 GMT -4
If it results in an improved service it's a good thing. My definition of "improved service" includes "up" There is room for improvement, I agree, but expecting perfection only results in disappointment because it is unattainable. There are better web hosts out there, I think mine is one of them, but I really don't think BAUT is down enough to really get upset. Last time I checked 99.46% was better than 50%... much better. If you are only able to access BAUT 50% of the time then that is a problem, but since I know I can access it more than that I would say it's not a problem on BAUT's end. ...still far better than a bricks-and-mortar businesses uptime. When accessing BAUT becomes a matter of life and death, like heating my home in the winter, I will consider your comparison valid. BAUT is basically a business... a business that rarely closes it's doors. If it shuts down for an hour every week it's still open longer than most businesses. And really, the only people who need to be upset are the people paying for the hosting (Phil and Fraser). I would like to believe the rest of us can survive without BAUT for a little while. Doing the math I figure 99.46% uptime translates to roughly 47 hours of downtime over the course of a year... almost 2 days. That's obviously not as good as some hosts, but it could be much, much worse. Perhaps they should consider switching hosts, but that would result in even more downtime for the site. It can take up to 72 hours for changes to the domain to take effect. If the current host has a record of being down for two days (spread out through the year) and it can take up to three days to transfer a site, then it is maybe in their best interest to stay put. In the long run it might pay off to move, but there is no guaranty the next host will be any better.
|
|
|
Post by agingjb on Jul 29, 2007 5:04:51 GMT -4
BAUT is now giving "www.bautforum.com could not be found. Please check the name and try again."
The reason I post about BAUT being out here is not to complain, I'm happy to wait until it comes back, but to check whether the problem is general or just something in my own setup.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 29, 2007 5:17:36 GMT -4
It's general.
|
|
|
Post by Sticks on Jul 29, 2007 8:54:07 GMT -4
BAUT is now giving " www.bautforum.com could not be found. Please check the name and try again." The reason I post about BAUT being out here is not to complain, I'm happy to wait until it comes back, but to check whether the problem is general or just something in my own setup. Ditto And it is down again Oh and on Thursday one of the adverts Phil's Blog almost put a virus on my system when it closed the main browser did and tried to follow in similar manner to Winfix2005 Under the old format that never happened. I have now done a boot up scan, which gave a clean result.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 29, 2007 9:18:35 GMT -4
There is room for improvement, I agree, OK, so you agree with the complaints you are complaining about? Regarding the other stuff, I don't want to make a big deal about this, but I think you need to take it easy here. 50% - you brought that one up (closer to 100% than 0%), not I. Not worth taking downtime to switch hosts - OK, a short time ago you were arguing downtime was worth it if it makes the service better. I don't get why this bothers you so much. People are complaining that the website is down a lot, and apparently it has been. In the online world, reliability rates greater than 99.46% are quite feasible. What's the big deal about people complaining about this? If I buy an online service, I want better than 99.46% reliability. This is a realistic expectation in this market. Why should I be happy with an hour of downtime a week if I can do better, just because WalMart closes 12 hours a day? That's no more relevant than my point about your heat going out 10 hours a day (a point apparently not taken). A particular theater group only comes through town here a few weeks a year, maybe I should be happy with that in an online service.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 29, 2007 9:43:26 GMT -4
A couple of days off line is really nothing to get too upset about. One time on the old BABB board, I was unable to gain access for 18 days straight.
A few days is really a minor inconvenience.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 29, 2007 10:25:54 GMT -4
A couple of days off line is really nothing to get too upset about. One time on the old BABB board, I was unable to gain access for 18 days straight. A few days is really a minor inconvenience. In my case, it's extremely minor. The only reason I know about it is because people mentioned it here
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 29, 2007 10:27:06 GMT -4
Regarding the other stuff, I don't want to make a big deal about this, but I think you need to take it easy here. What are you talking about? I'm telling people to relax, that the downtime is unavoidable, that it will be back... and I need to take it easy? When did I say 50%? I said their uptime was closer... much closer... to 100% than 0%. You're the one who made the 50% claim, and I have no idea where you got that number from. Yes, 50% downtime would be a serious problem, but I don't know of anyone who would claim BAUT has been down that much. Are you here simply to look for an argument? That's the impression I get from some of your comments, and not just in this thread. Yes, if a host goes down in order to perform upgrades it is beneficial. Would you prefer they stayed the same and didn't attempt to keep up with their growth? Maybe the new data center will help them bring their uptime rating higher. There is a difference between downtime to perform upgrades and going down due to poor hardware maintenance, technical incompetence, inability to cope with DoS attacks, etc. Blue Virtual doesn't appear to be the best host, but they are far from the worst. And yes, switching hosts because they sometimes go down is a risky decision... you've got the downtime that has already happened, up to 3 days of downtime during the transfer, and a very good possibility that the new host will be down just as much if not more. I have seen people leave my host in a huff because of a temporary glitch and then come back two months later. If Phil and Fraser are unhappy with the downtime then there are plenty of other hosts out there, but it's up to them. BAUT is pretty big and their finances limit how good a host they can use. This is going to happen because they aren't able to throw money at the problem the way YouTube or Digg might. I just don't see how complaining about it solves the problem. It's down, it WILL be back. It always comes back. So just sit back and relax because unless you're located in Blue Virtual's data center there is nothing you can do about it.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 29, 2007 11:14:38 GMT -4
And it's back. No need for an argument.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 29, 2007 12:31:28 GMT -4
When did I say 50%? I said their uptime was closer... much closer... to 100% than 0%. You're the one who made the 50% claim, Show me, please. and I have no idea where you got that number from. 50% is the midpoint between 100% and 0%, so if something is closer to 100% than 0%, that means it is greater than 50%. Are you here simply to look for an argument? That's the impression I get from some of your comments, and not just in this thread. For the second time, I really suggest some perspective. If you run a public web forum, people are not going to agree with everything you say. Did you, in this very thread, disagree with someone else? If so, why are you all hot and bothered that my opinion is different than yours?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 29, 2007 13:36:34 GMT -4
Ishmael, the BAUT Forum's uptime is 99.46%. He said this in the last post on page 7. You made your 50% figure on page 8, after quoting GrandLunar's post which contained the 99.46%.
I'm not sure what the problem is. Maybe a miscommunication, or something.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 29, 2007 14:19:27 GMT -4
Am I the only one who finds it a bit odd that there's an entire thread that consists of messages like "Bad Astronomy is down...now it's up again"?
|
|
|
Post by Sticks on Jul 29, 2007 17:18:37 GMT -4
Sorry I set this up originally when there were earlier issues.
Just in case it was my server that was the problem
|
|