100% Uptime Guarantee means 100% Uptime Guarantee!

[noam]

Jaguarpc says, "We guarantee that the network will be available 100% of the time!"

Sounds great.

Lets say one day, Apache crashes and your site is unavailable. Apparently that wouldn't count as downtime...

Let's say your mail server starts giving you errors and you can't send or recieve any email. That wouldn't count as downtime.

Let's say your server's hard drive fails and your site is unavailable - for a week! Apparently that wouldn't count as downtime...

Let's say new security patches and software updates are being applied to your server by Jaguarpc and your server crashes. Apparently that too wouldn't count as downtime.

Let's say due to a JaguarPC misconfiguration or sloppy error, your server gets hacked and your site is shut down. Apparently that wouldn't count as downtime.

A 100% uptime guaarantee should mean a 100% uptime guarantee. From a customer's perspective, when a site is down its irrelevent if it was caused by a hard drive crash or security breach or currupted software or a failed service, etc - downtime is downtime!

[jason]

Jaguarpc says, "We guarantee that the network will be available 100% of the time!"

There is one very key word in this prrase, and that is network.

It is a act of life that servers will crash, updates will fail, and misconfigurations will happen (the techs are only human). Since sites operate on a single machine there is a single point of failure--machine goes down, site goes down. It is unfortunate, but its a fact of life.

Networks, on the other hand, can be built with all kinds of redundancy: multiple NIC (network cards) on individual servers, multiple routers, multiple upstream providers, overhead and underground connections, backup power, etc. I don't know JPC's exact configurations, but I know several of these features are employed at the data center. It would take a catastrophic event to bring down the network, and JPC is even prepared for that, as they indicated during huricane season last year.

Without redundancy you cannot guarantee uptime. You won't find any host that will (must don't even give a 100% guarantee on their networks). If you can't live with the fact that a hardware failure, a software update, or another user's rouge script might bring down your site, I'm sure that JPC would be happy to build you a fully redundant system of multiple dedicated servers.

--Jason

[Spathiphyllum]

I think noam understands this, jason. He is complaining that the "100% Uptime Guarantee" is misleading, nevermind that the guarantee is true in the strictest sense. I love it here and have been very satisfied with the service and uptime. I also recognize, as do most clients, that downtime is inevitable. The problem is that such marketing subtleties may mislead people who don't read the exact phraseology and then get upset when they feel a promise was broken.

I agree with noam despite recognizing that this webhost is terrific and will try its darndest to keep the servers running. Truth in advertising also means not hiding policy in fine print when a bold headline is what makes the sale. Such tactics may improve initial sales, but it can also lead to disgruntled customers who may feel misled even though, technically, Jaguar explicitly stated policy somewhere on the site.

[tank]

I think noam understands this, jason. He is complaining that the "100% Uptime Guarantee" is misleading, nevermind that the guarantee is true in the strictest sense.

True.. but the text as read on the homepage is: "100% Network Uptime Guarantee" Can't be much more clearer than that.

[Vin DSL]

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." –Bill Clinton

I know the JagPC '100% Guarantee' sounds rather Clinton-esque -- and it is -- by design -- but all the other mass web hosts tell these 'stories' too, to make you *feel* better, so JagPC would be stupid NOT to offer such a guarantee. And, I know they DO make good on it... even though YOU might think it isn't as comprehensive as the name implies, or downright misleading.

The real problem is, ppl are stupid, and stupid is as stupid does! Some 'webmasters' are just plain nuts, no question about it. They honestly believe there's such a thing as 100% uptime, and you can get it for $5.95 month -- guaranteed... hahahaha!

I was upset when I found out the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and Santa Claus didn't exist, but I got over it. I suggest you do the same...

[noam]

True.. but the text as read on the homepage is: "100% Network Uptime Guarantee" Can't be much more clearer than that.

Although you and I may have a good level of technical knowledge and understand the differences between "network" and "server", the average person does not and would see, "100% Network Uptime Guarantee" and assume it means their site will be up 100%.

I think noam understands this, jason. He is complaining that the "100% Uptime Guarantee" is misleading, nevermind that the guarantee is true in the strictest sense. [...] The problem is that such marketing subtleties may mislead people who don't read the exact phraseology and then get upset when they feel a promise was broken. I agree with noam despite recognizing that this webhost is terrific and will try its darndest to keep the servers running. Truth in advertising also means not hiding policy in fine print when a bold headline is what makes the sale. Such tactics may improve initial sales, but it can also lead to disgruntled customers who may feel misled even though, technically, Jaguar explicitly stated policy somewhere on the site.

Nicely worded Spathiphyllum.


.

[Gwaihir]

I guess "the average person" will find out at his first host then. I did. They all mention their network uptime goal / guarantee. It would raise eyebrows if JagPC didn't. Also, the guarantee is very real here, unlike at many other hosts, for whom it seems to be a lofty goal with no penalties / making up from their side should they fail to make it.

I'm really not sure what JagPC could do to make this clearer. You can hardly expect them to put big warnings on sales pages about something that is quite normal in the business and quite true too. Sorry, but the average person buying hosting knows (or should know) quite well that a computer (server) is NOT a network. For crying out loud, he is out to buy space on a computer connected to a network, the internet.

So, to assume network uptime means otherwise is really just poor reading on our, the customer's, side. Those who do read and still wonder won't have a hard time at all finding what exactly it means. These forums or a simple Google would tell you right away and I'm confident sales would explain it well too, if one asks.

[Gwaihir]

Hmm.. I have found something they could do. I noticed there's no link to the policies that detail those guarantees (uptime and 30 money back) anywhere on that page. IHMO if you want to do it well, they should be within one click and preferably labeled clearly - "TOS" and "SLA" aren't really laymen's terms. Perhaps the lines themselves could be direct links?

And while commenting on that page:
- Perhaps over time a couple of more features could be direct links to explanations in for example the knowledge base or FAQ? Multi-hosting and domain parking are asked about a lot..
- Bandwith: how burstable is it / what is really the limit? 180/month or 6/day? Those are not the same thing..
- MS Frontpage: you mean MS Frontpage extentions, right? Or are you indeed handing out the actual software package to webmasters? (This may seem like an over the top question, but I have seen several webhosts that hand out software with an account. Obviously nothing as fancy as Frontpage (but probably just as useless .)
- Custom SSL: requires a certificate AND a dedicated IP. If that doesn't fit on the line, it should say "optional", rather than suggest the certificate is the only cost.

[Spathiphyllum]

Gwaihir,

I think all of your suggestions are good ones. I haven't perused the KBase or FAQs in some time, but I scanned it briefly and the layout has been greatly modified. To what extent it has been amended, I'm not sure. Nevertheless, the notes you suggest would be helpful.

Now, back to the guarantee, I understood what the statement meant and what it means re the "network" component of it. I also understand the marketability of features and the "me tooism" of at least stating that one has at least the same features as the competition despite also adopting the industry's default terminology, however imprecise or suggestive.

The point is that webhosts are looking for new clients both from those who have used a webhost before and others who are ignorant novices. We were all novices once and did not have a grasp of every concept of webmastering and internet technologies. I learn every day and will until I quit doing this webmastering stuff. I could understand how a new, inexperienced client would feel overwhelmed by the new endeavor s/he is about to undertake and would miss keywords in their haste to start producing content. There are thousands of companies to review and an equal number of "guarantees" to parse. Missing or assuming something is quite likely even though a more thorough read with a better grasp of concepts should elucidate the nuance of uptime and the applicability to the disparate hardware and service required to produce output.

This should not be read as a critique as much as productive criticism in order to enhance a fine product. A disgruntled customer, however inexperienced at first, is likely lost business. I doubt Jaguar wants that even though it was a "100% Uptime Guarantee" that drew interest in the first place. The downside of not being precise, even if it is the fault of the ignorant customer for misunderstanding, is that said customer will tell ten other people of how Jaguar "lied" instead of telling four other people how great the service is. That is not good business. Jaguar can decide if the eyeballs a guarantee attracts brings in more business than it loses from ex-clients who felt misled and let the world know about it. The customer is always right, even when they are wrong. Such is the scourge of a service industry.

[lokki]

I've been thinking about how to deal with the difficulties of living on a shared server. The solution that has been offered is to run a 2nd site on another physical machine, and set up alternate MX and A records that could be adapted quickly. Not sure how the DNS updates would propagate in the even the primary site went down, but it might take less time than a full repair or replacment.

Optimally, one would do this also with a different host altogether, though coordinating the sites could be a nightmare. I guess this would essentially be a mirrored set up, but I admit I don't know nearly enough to throw those words around. And again, you would have to know almost instantly when a site went down so you could make the adjustments (I don't know if there's a way to combine this with other rapid DNS updaters and automate the process in the even of a 500 or other server missing error).

[jason]

I've been thinking about how to deal with the difficulties of living on a shared server. The solution that has been offered is to run a 2nd site on another physical machine, and set up alternate MX and A records that could be adapted quickly. Not sure how the DNS updates would propagate in the even the primary site went down, but it might take less time than a full repair or replacment.

Optimally, one would do this also with a different host altogether, though coordinating the sites could be a nightmare. I guess this would essentially be a mirrored set up, but I admit I don't know nearly enough to throw those words around. And again, you would have to know almost instantly when a site went down so you could make the adjustments (I don't know if there's a way to combine this with other rapid DNS updaters and automate the process in the even of a 500 or other server missing error).

Setting up an alternate host to receive email is easy to do because MX records have a priority value attached to them. If you just want to be sure that your mail gets through you can set up the alternate server's MX entry with a lower priority than your main host. All mail will then go to the main host unless it is unavailable, in which case the secondary host will get it. No eleventh hour switching is necessary.

Getting traffic (web, FTP, etc.) to head to the secondary host is another animal. You can set multiple IP's to use the same host names (try an nslookup on www.microsoft.com for an example), so you could set up multiple hosts to respond to your requests. With A records, however, there is no priority system. IP's are handed out in a round-robbin fashion--the first host to request an IP gets the first one listed, the second gets the second one, etc. When one site goes down half of your traffic will theoretically not notice, but half of it will be sent to the bad IP. Because of DNS caching there is no easy way to fix that.

--Jason

[JPC-Greg]

So should I fire up some interworx based clustered hosting yet?

[tank]

Some 'webmasters' are just plain nuts, no question about it. They honestly believe there's such a thing as 100% uptime, and you can get it for $5.95 month -- guaranteed... hahahaha!

This has been a huge problem that I've seen all over the internet. We constantly go in to clients and get the song and dance of.. well company X can host our site for this a lower amount. And it turns out they are comparing apples to oranges. There is a reason that I pay for backup services and VPS space and insurance. So that I know I will always have their data available or that we have the money available for our clients downtime. I spend a lot of time reading where the breakdown of what Jag is responsible for and where I pick it up. These "webmasters" just want to make a quick buck and don't realize the limitations of the plans and what a company actually loses in revenue if the website is down.

Although you and I may have a good level of technical knowledge and understand the differences between "network" and "server", the average person does not and would see, "100% Network Uptime Guarantee" and assume it means their site will be up 100%.

I would agree. The problem lies in that there are a lot of "average" people getting in over their heads just becuase its easy to set someone up with some webspace and sign the back of a a couple checks. You can look back at the VPS problem on Apollo a few months back. It was a horrible situation all around, but the TOS were stated.

I do agree that all TOS should be clearly put upfront and not hidden. It's been a while since I've gone through an order process, but it would make since that the customers have to agree to them before signing up.

[tank]

So should I fire up some interworx based clustered hosting yet?

they wouldn't pay for it. LOL

[noam]

Sorry, but the average person buying hosting knows (or should know) quite well that a computer (server) is NOT a network. For crying out loud, he is out to buy space on a computer connected to a network, the internet.

I disagree. The computer systems and servers could fall within the definition of a "network".


Definitions:

* "A connection of two or more computers so that they can share resources."
http://www.starrsites.com/glossary.htm

* "A group of computers, connected by a telecommunications link, that share information."
http://www.utas.edu.au/library/etutor/main/webzglos.htm

* "A group of stations (computers, telephones, or other devices) connected by communications facilities for exchanging information."
http://www.ohsu.edu/vcs/glossary/

* "A configuration of data processing devices and software connected for information interchange."
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc.../7_agloss.mspx

* "A number of computers linked together."
http://www.liv.ac.uk/webteam/glossary/

* "A group of computers linked together to share resources."
http://www.umkc.edu/registrar/sis/glossary.asp

* "A set of nodes, points, or locations connected by means of data, voice, and video communications for the purpose of exchange."
http://www.acponline.org/computer/te...e/glossary.htm

* "The combination of two or more hosts and the connecting links between them."
http://publib16.boulder.ibm.com/pser.../tcp_intro.htm

* "Computers connected together for the purpose of sharing resources and communication."
http://www.firsttown.net/design-glossary.html

* "A group of computers or devices that are connected together for the exchange of data and sharing of resources."
http://www.netdictionary.com/n.html

* "A collection of terminals, computers, and other equipment that use communication channels to share data."
http://www.esls.lib.wi.us/glossary.html

* "A computer network is a group of computers and peripherals connected together to communicate with each other and to share information and resources."
http://www.micro2000uk.co.uk/network_glossary.htm

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Clearly, the term "network" and what it does and does not consists of, is not entirely clear. Especially for non-technical users.