New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
How much Uptime Percentage is acceptable to be called as a good host?
vladimirlenin
Member
in General
Many providers advertise their servers with a 100% Uptime tag. And it is very hard to believe, as there can be many unforeseen issues like power outage, network down, router failure, disk failure and list goes on...
But anyway, as per your personal optional what percentage of uptime can be considered as acceptable. Every customer would expect 100% Uptime, but for now let us speak about the reality.
Comments
Depends. For example paying 5 USD / quarter for 500 GB storage I expect at least 70% uptime. The rest 30% downtime is expected as server is used only to store cold backups.
99.9%
99.90 to 99.95 is the economical sweet spot, I think. This would equal 4 to 8 hours of downtime per year. Anything better than 99.99 will require a more complex redundant setup. Will be hard to do with a single server or location.
You could improve the "subjective" uptime by having a fixed maintenance window at an off-peak time. Works well if your users are geographically in the same place or have similar usage patterns.
A X% uptime guarantee does not imply the provider expects to achieve X% uptime, just that they will issue some type of credit (according to their SLA) if the uptime is less than X%.
It is similar to a manufacturer offering a warranty on the car for 3 years - it does not mean they expect no car will have a problem for 3 years, just that they will cover the repairs when something goes wrong during that time.
Second, many of the "uptime" guarantees I've seen exclude issues with upstream providers which limits the usefulness.
Personally I'd put any host under 99.95% on a watch list and consider them for replacement. But I also look at the pattern of outages. I've got one host that is at 99.78% which I'm keeping (for now) since the problem was one solid block where a router failed. I find that much easier to work around than providers which have higher average uptime but where I'm getting shorter duration outages multiple times per week.
I would narrow it more from 99.95 to 99.99
99.997% excl. maintenance that was advertised at least 2 weeks in advance.
100% uptime.
Any sort of downtime should result in a SLA credit of 12 years of free service.
No maintenance allowed.
99.995%
Downtime
99.9% uptime and less than one down period per month is minimal requirement, and if other aspects(performance,price,etc) are good then I think it is a good host.
If other aspects are normal/average, at least 99.99% uptime is needed to be called as a good host.
Your website link please sir, i want to order from you sir.
I think 99.99% is a good target and all, but realistically 98-99% works for me and my projects.
https://endis.nigh/order.php?referral+ID=xxxdeank666xxx
Uptime is not the only factor to call a good host or a bad host.
Not working , or is it too early for the summer ?
It means you are not a member of Nigh cult.
97% up is very good..
:-0
Maybe for some type of idler or backup storage that is written to for a few minutes per day. For anything actually being used, if it goes below 99.5% I am usually taking it out of service and writing off the remaining prepaid $.
I think around 99÷ should be fine for the most users, BUT Microsoft, wich is by far not the cheapest, offers only 95÷ on HDD instances.
I think the most important thing is that the provider knows how much he can promise, however, unfortunately, very many specify 100% or similar and then can not keep it.
We state our availability at 99.5%.
Arubacloud are saying their Czechia Data Center has 100% since 2004! Could that even be possible?
https://www.arubacloud.com/infrastructures/czech-republic-dc-cz1.aspx
Did I miss something here?
Edit: Corrected year
Depends how you measure it. That the building has been standing for that long? Sure not a problem.
That long without complete power outage, always at least something is powered in the building? Sure not a problem.
It is all about what and how you measure
Also it's about luck and statistics, you can be lucky and have with no redundancy what so ever 100% uptime for that time down to a single server; But that is extremely extremely unlikely.
Honestly as long as any downtime is either communicated in advanced ie hardware upgrades or from stuff outside of providers control ie flood/fire id say its good enough.
For me I don't like numbers like 99.9%, but I have two requirements:
If a provider can't even achieve these, then for me it's time to leave.
But how can you find out whether it is oversold or not???
If performance is dog shit - the host is likely overselling.
As close to 100% as humanly possible... stuff happens and things break but how quickly can you/do you fix them?
100% is a sales gimmick, but 99.99% should be achievable most of the time (that gives something like 30-60 mins downtime a month) and if things are breaking every month something needs replacing
this is the correct answer
99.99% is less then 5min a months. 99.93% would be about 30min. So it sounds as if you meant 99.9%, not 99.99%.
You mean 99.9% right?
Because with 99.99% it would be 4m 22s per month
With 99.9% its 43m 49s
1% per USD
7% Debian thx