Comments on: Thinking about uptime numbers for the top 20 websites

By: Jacques Marneweck

Jacques Marneweck — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:34:51 +0000

Well you have to compare apples with apples. Users tend to compare downtime to things that are important to them. If you are a TypePad user and http://www.typepad.com went down that would affect you but you don’t care if http://www.sixapart.com goes down.

And I’m glad that we’re not hosted on the Temple Grid Server.

Stats have different meanings to different people based on what was collected. The trick is collect the data you require to make the correct analysis.

By: John Zeratsky

John Zeratsky — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 21:00:05 +0000

Very good point, Jason.

We (at FeedBurner) optimize everything to keep feeds available no matter what. The web interface at http://www.feedburner.com is important too, but there’d be a lot of angry publishers (and subscribers!) if feeds.feedburner.com was down!

By: MacStansbury

MacStansbury — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 07:54:19 +0000

I remember the last time Flickr went to Hellen Beck, and how the site was pretty much offline, but the images still served as expected. You could say that Flickr was down, but the most important service still worked.

I would, however, fear the backlash from the bloggers and the teens if those services went down for a whole day or something. They might have to, you know, go outside, or talk to friends, or something else drastic like that.