Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 29, 2007 18:34:01 GMT -4
ishmael said:
admin said:
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.
Ok...
ishmael said:
Well, I agree none of them can provide 100% reliability, but there is close to 100%, and there is far from 100% admin said:
The uptime experienced by Phil's host is a lot closer to 100% than it is 0%. 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).ishmael said:
I would rather hope for better than 50% That is where the problem originated. The way I interpret the above quote it appears you are saying BAUT is only accessible 50% of the time. You hope for better than 50% uptime... and Phil's host delivers 99.46% uptime. So what's the problem?
admin said:
Last time I checked 99.46% was better than 50%... much better.admin said:
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?
I don't mind people disagreeing with me, as long as it isn't just to stir up an argument.
Several times I've seen you say things in disagreement, and not just with me, for what appears to be no reason. Why, for example, would anyone disagree that a temporary loss of service in order to perform upgrades is ultimately beneficial? If the downtime results in less downtime in the future then isn't it worthwhile? I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that for any reason other than to simply be contradictory. You would have to be so shortsighted, so focused on the inconvenience of the current downtime, to not see that it can be a good thing in the long run.
If the host is moving into a larger data center as Phil claimed then it is a sign of growth. They are trying to keep up with the demand. The alternative is stagnation.
I don't know, maybe 5 years of working in retail has destroyed my tolerance for complainers and I'm using this thread to vent.