FQ Alert: Network Outage

[Justin]

There was a brief network outage with UUNet. The Altanta router was stuck in a loop from about 3:00 PM until about 4:00 PM, EST.

We appologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest (http://www.FutureQuest.net/index.php) Support

[JoeRT]

So when these routers get caught in a loop, are they like the old record players that you had to nudge to get the needle unstuck?[nbsp][nbsp]:P

--------------------
Joe Torsitano
www.weatherforyou.com (http://www.weatherforyou.com)

[Deb]

I *wish* they were things we could nudge but things like what happened today are with UUnet and their equipment totally beyond our reach :(

[Benj]

Usually when a downtime occurs on one of my site I get depressed. I keep asking me questions like "Is the host aware" ? "Are they working on it" ?

Well on FQ I take things easy, I always know FQ is aware, and I 'm sure they are doing everything possible withing their reach (In this case they couldn't do much....)

Benj

[JoeRT]

Oh I know they have things handled... I learned that a long time ago.[nbsp][nbsp]I've been with FQ for one year now, and went through four other hosts in the seven months previous to that just because they were clueless when there were problems.[nbsp][nbsp]I was so hard on FQ during my first few months because of my previous experiences... but then I learned... and that's why I'm still here.

My comment was only a badly timed pun in an attempt to bring a (very) little humor to a bad situation.[nbsp][nbsp]I'll keep my posts to myself.

[SneakyDave]

At this moment, PHOENIX is hanging for a number of people. Any reason?

[sandeephundal]

Yeah, my site on phoenix also seems down.... the server is contacted but it doesn't send anything back....[nbsp][nbsp]:((

although email and telnet seem fine.......

/sandeep

[Justin]

There was an issue with a few sites on Phoenix (those on the .74 IP), which has now been resolved. We appologize for any inconvenience.

------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest (http://www.FutureQuest.net/index.php) Support

[Deb]

I'll keep my posts to myself Don't you dare![nbsp][nbsp]I'd miss your posts![nbsp][nbsp]My response was of a more general nature and in no way did I find your "pun" harmful...I got a chuckle actually.

I was just ending an extended period of time awake...

Deb
[nbsp]- I've now slept! :)

[WayneDraznin]

This isn't really a concern, more curiosity.[nbsp][nbsp]If you determine an outage is significant enough to credit site owners, how is that handled for those who have paid a year in advance?

[Deb]

Firstly, if the outage is on the side of FQ it *is* significent enough.[nbsp][nbsp]We count all outages against the uptime even if it's only 5 minutes.[nbsp][nbsp]Any server that falls under 99.5% uptime will receive credits...

The credits are applied automatically to each account on the server.[nbsp][nbsp]No need to request it etc.

For annual accounts, you'll notice the credit there upon renewal time.[nbsp][nbsp]E.g. If it's time to renew the Basic Package for $179.40 and you have $20.00 worth of credits you'll only be charged $159.40.[nbsp][nbsp]Each credit is applied to the next payment due on the account whether annual or monthly.[nbsp][nbsp]If you were to order Value Added Services for the account you may request that the credits be applied to them instead.[nbsp][nbsp]If no request like this is made then the credits just hold over until the next payment is due.

Deb
[nbsp]- Giv'm whatcha promise them!

[Jeff]

if the outage is on the side of FQ

Am I wrong to count any outage during which no one in the world can reach FQ as "on the side of FQ"?

...BTW, in the time I've been here FQ has always delivered far beyond 99.5% uptime (server + FQ's connection), so I wouldn't worry...

[Deb]

To be an FQ issue it must be a problem with something we have control over.[nbsp][nbsp]If UUnet has a router problem in an area we have no control over (the issue in this thread was a problem in a different state from FQ entirely) then we usually will not count it as "on the FQ side"

We have been known to credit accounts for large scale problems whether within our realm or not...but we usually only honor our own services and not that of others...

Deb
[nbsp]- It's not MY fault I forgot to plug it in!

[Jeff]

As long as someone somewhere can reach you I agree entirely(i.e. if the issue in another state makes it so some people cannot contact you but you are still well connected to the outside world)

However, in instances such as the recent fiber cut when the whole world was online except you (at least from my perspective) I would say this is somewhat your fault since you choose who you are connected with for better or worse.

If similar fiber cuts or UUNet downtime ever resulted in your uptime slipping below 99.5% I would expect you to take action to change connections or add redundancy, and this is why I would hope that it counts against your uptime guarantee.[nbsp][nbsp]I hope you never ever pay anyone because I hope you never ever even come close to .5% downtime.

So far I have not been disappointed in any way.

...a reaction against all those other "its not my fault's" from other ISP's...

[DB]

Historical note: A year and a half ago FQ was using SprintLink, which was awful, at least for me. At times I was experiencing packet loss of over 50%, it was so bad that to upload a large file to one of my accounts I would have to first upload it to some other server (eg. my ISP FTP account), then Telnet into FQ and use Midnight Commander to transfer the file from one remote account to another. If not for FQ's pledge that they would soon be dropping SprintLink for UUNet, I would have been out of here a long time ago.

My point is if things ever got really bad with UUNet I strongly suspect history would repeat itself and FQ would do whatever it takes to find a more reliable pipeline into the net. So far, UUNet has been fairly good, but it should be pointed out that when their service is interrupted, they don't issue refunds. So in effect, if FQ counted things like fiber cuts against their own downtime, they would be paying for someone else's mistakes. I'm satisfied that FQ takes full responsibility for their own system, but I don't think it would be fair to hold them accountable for every fiber and router beyond their control.

Having redundant connections would be nice, and it's been mentioned that redundancy may be in FQ's future. But it will only become possible with the economy of scale since the cost of a second connection is expensive and would have to be passed along to the customers. At this point, in light of the acceptable service UUNet has provided, I would rather not pay extra to fund the second connection. When the day comes that they can dilute that cost over thousands of accounts then it may be worth paying a little extra, but if they were to significantly raise the hosting costs today we might not ever get to that point. Like most things in life, it's a trade-off, and my feeling is that the current balance of cost/reliability has been well chosen.

------------------
--Tom aka DiamondBack
[nbsp][nbsp]http://diamond-back.com
[nbsp][nbsp]http://smartasses.org

[Jeff]

So in effect, if FQ counted things like fiber cuts against their own downtime, they would be paying for someone else's mistakes.[nbsp][nbsp]I'm satisfied that FQ takes full responsibility for their own system, but I don't think it would be fair to hold them accountable for every fiber and router beyond their control.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but with the same logic I'll sell you an account on my computer connected with DSL for a really good deal.[nbsp][nbsp]I'll[nbsp][nbsp]gaurantee 99.9% uptime, except when the cheap local consumer ISP goes down all the time which is "beyond my control."[nbsp][nbsp]

My point is simply that I think "uptime" should refer to time a website it up (meaning accessible) not just time the host's hdd's are spinning.[nbsp][nbsp]If 99.5% uptime doesn't mean 99.5% accessible to at least one other person outside of the host's control room then "uptime" becomes meaningless.

Obviously I wouldn't hold FQ responsible for breaks on my end, but I do think that they must be responsible as part of their uptime gaurantee for breaks on their end.

(My experience up to this point is that even with the lengthly fiber cut downtime a month ago, Terra's well built servers have maintained above 99.5% uptime, and well above this figure when averaged over multiple months, so I am very happy with FQ... but I do consider "uptime" as website uptime not just server uptime.)

[JoeRT]

Obviously I wouldn't hold FQ responsible for breaks on my end, but I do think that they must be responsible as part of their uptime gaurantee for breaks on their end. So where exactly does "their end" start?[nbsp][nbsp]Where does "my end" stop?[nbsp][nbsp]I'm in California, FQ is in Florida.[nbsp][nbsp]If there's a "backhoe fade" in Kansas is that my end or their end?[nbsp][nbsp]People in Virginia may still be getting to my site.

If 99.5% uptime doesn't mean 99.5% accessible to at least one other person outside of the host's control room then "uptime" becomes meaningless. I remember last month's break was just north of FQ.[nbsp][nbsp]So if during that time just one person in Miami could get to your site you're satisfied?

Like DB I am convinced FQ has made the best choices they have available.[nbsp][nbsp]That's why I just renewed my annuals... I've never done that with a host before.

----------------------
Joe Torsitano
www.weatherforyou.com (http://www.weatherforyou.com)
www.tiswest.com (http://www.tiswest.com)

[Justin]

...but with the same logic I'll sell you an account on my computer connected with DSL for a really good deal.[nbsp][nbsp]I'll[nbsp][nbsp]gaurantee 99.9% uptime, except when the cheap local consumer ISP goes down all the time which is "beyond my control." This is why we do not use a "cheap local consumer ISP", rather we chose to use UUNet for connectivity. While we cannot guarantee UUNet's lines, we guarantee our services, which includes ensuring that we are using the highest-quality upstream provider that our budget allows. If we were following your logic, we would just pick the cheapest provider, and point the finger when something goes down, not caring about the quality of the line because it's not within our uptime guarantee. That is something we would not do, and it is our hope that our reputation proves this. Just ask anyone who's been around a while ;)

------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest (http://www.FutureQuest.net/index.php) Support

[DB]

I love philosophical technology discussions. :)

Joe's question about where to define "my end" and "their end" is the key. For example, if there is a break between Atlanta and Orlando, would that be close enough to FQ in Kissimmee to be "their end?" Most people wouldn't be able to access FQ because much of the traffic is routed through Atlanta. Even though I'm located in Miami, both of my ISPs (Mindspring and BellSouth) are based in Atlanta. So for me, "all roads lead to Atlanta" is true in the digital age... I can't even access a Miami-based server without going up to ATL and back.[nbsp][nbsp]But in this example, someone using a local ISP in Orlando might be able to get into Kissimmee, where they would have FQ's still functioning servers pretty much to themselves. Maybe I should blame my ISPs for not having redundant pipes into Orlando?

Even redundant connections isn't a guarantee that you'll have a good connection. One host I briefly used boasted of "three redundant T3 lines." What they didn't say is that all three went into Charlotte, SC, any problems beyond the end of their T3s and they were dead in the water. It would have helped if they spread out the destinations, but I imagine that could have gotten expensive. The second problem was they overloaded their servers, which more than negated the T3s.

As Justin said, FQ is using the highest-quality upstream provider that their budget allows. If not UUNet, then who? Certainly not SprintLink. GlobalCenter? Been there, done that, could have designed the t-shirt during heavy congestion periods. No upstream provider is going to be perfect, and that's not FQ's fault so why should they have to pay for it? As long as they maintain everything on their end of the cable, I'll be a happy camper.

------------------
--Tom aka DiamondBack
[nbsp][nbsp]http://diamond-back.com
[nbsp][nbsp]http://smartasses.org

[Terra]

Good morning everyone, and how is everyone today?[nbsp][nbsp]:)

As I step outside to enjoy a brief moment of the rising sun, I sense something peculiar...

It dawns on me that the sensations I feel are coming from the winds of change...

They stir nuances of vision that fill my mind with choices to solutions...

I wish I could share more, but I must remove myself to my envelope of systems and savor the essence...

What will become of the whirlpool, will unravel itself in time...

--
Terra
--Enigma
If you understand or if you don't
If you believe or if you doubt
There's a universal justice
And the eyes of truth
Are always watching you.
--The Cross Of Changes
FutureQuest

[eunice]

Terra, what was in your coffee cup this morning?[nbsp][nbsp]
------------------
--Laurie

[Deb]

Sounds to me like he's been sniffing the bandwidth again.... don't worry, I'll have a talk with him :P

[tedloh]

LMAO!

That must have been one STRONG cuppa java![nbsp][nbsp]Is he always poetic when he's happy? :)
------------------
Ted (Chief Do-It-All)
Got2Bet.com - The Net's Winner's Circle
http://www.got2bet.com
ted@tygresystems.com

[frankc]

I want some--no, a LOT--of whatever teRRa's drinking![nbsp][nbsp]:D

[nbsp][nbsp]Frank
==things aren't *ever* dull here!==