Quantcast StorefrontBacktalk » Blog Archive » Google’s SLA Games: They Can Have 21 Hours Of Downtime In A Day And Still Claim 100 Percent Uptime
advertisement
advertisement

Google’s SLA Games: They Can Have 21 Hours Of Downtime In A Day And Still Claim 100 Percent Uptime

Written by Evan Schuman
December 5th, 2008
Like this story? Share it
To share this story with people in your social network, please click on the network icons below.

A service level agreement (SLA) is a guarantee from a site that its uptime will be as promised, n’est pas? Actually, quite the opposite. It’s more likely a complicated document designed to protect the site (not the retailer) in case of any problem.

Pingdom has crafted a wonderful example, based on the Google SLA given to its cloud customers. Google’s SLA: “‘Downtime Period’ means, for a domain, a period of ten consecutive minutes of Downtime. Intermittent Downtime for a period of less than ten minutes will not be counted towards any Downtime Periods.” Pingdom, correctly pointing out that frequent short outages are much more common than long ones, did the math and reported that “Gmail could be unavailable for more than 21 hours in a day and Google could still tell you that, according to their SLA, the service has had 100 percent uptime.” You really need to read that piece before you sign your next SLA.


advertisement

Leave a Reply

Newsletter

Quickly catch-up on the latest in E-Commerce and Retail Tech with our free weekly newsletter, with urgent bulletins as news merits.
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Kill All The Passwords

This article does mention, but does not give enough attention to, the fact that the attacks discussed are only feasible when the encrypted password file can be copied and subjected to an offline attack. The trick is to have authentication performed on a separate, much more strongly secured host - such as an Active Directory Domain Controller, or a Kerberos server, or a NIS+ server, or even using something as banal as an LDAP-over-SSL authentication dialog. In these environments, the odds of the "password file" being stolen and subjected to an offline attack go to near zero, and only online attacks may be carried out by the attacker. With sensible exponential backoff between failed password attempts, lockout after a modest number of failed attempts on a single account, and pattern detection, that minimum 7 character password is quite secure enough. Passwords aren't dead yet for security purposes, and they will be with us for a very long while to come for practical purposes. The trick is to employ them correctly. Read more...
The possibilities you describe are years away from being implemented at best, so for the moment passwords are an ugly reality. Luckily, password managers can easily manage hundreds of passwords of any length. The only thing a user needs to remember is the master password. It seems like an easier task to educate users on how to use password managers rather than implement complex security technology on a global basis. Read more...