warren at kumari.net
Thu Jun 18 13:26:21 UTC 2020
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:26 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
> On 18/Jun/20 00:50, Warren Kumari wrote:
> A number of customers (myself included) had 4 hour replacement contracts, which the vendor really could not meet - so we agreed to take a new, much larger/better model as a replacement.
> It's one of the reasons we never pay for 24/7/365.
> In many cases for our experience, with sufficient pre-built redundancy, there isn't much different with 24/7 vs. NBD, apart from the cost. So why pay for the premium.
Ah, because, if you word / negotiate your contract carefully, the
failure to meet the 24/7 SLO can be converted into credit -- either
actual discounts or simply a big stick when negotiating new stuff.
Many years ago I worked for a company who repeatedly tripped over
their own feet - but the one good thing that they actually managed was
to have a good clause in their support contract -- we got free 24/7
support for 3 years in a row because the contact had a "if you miss
the response time more than N% of the time, we ain't gonna pay"
clause. We had many locations in the USA, but also in Bangalore,
Chennai, Hyderabad, Paris, London, Mumbai, and Marseille - for some
reason Marseille was almost always the winner in terms of missing the
> And if a site does not require redundancy, it's cheaper to have a cold standby than to give it 24/7/365, or even NBD.
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
More information about the NANOG