Servers down

[+ReadyOrNot]

Excuse makers are very helpful.

 

Thank you for your continued efforts.

 

When I use to do consulting, whenever a customer complained about down-time, all you had to do was give them a quote to fix the problem... They didn't usually complain after that.

[+mtn-man]

The use of that as an excuse for the sub-standard performance of a for profit company that relys on "the game" for it's income is perhaps an indication of the greater problem.

Oh yeah, I understand your point. So do they. They know all too well that there is a greater problem. That is why they are working toward a solution. They have tried, as Jeremy said once some time ago, "cobbled together" solutions. There have been some short term solutions but now they are thinking long term. I think that is a good thing. It is going to take time to make sure you have a good, long term solution. We are living in the middle of that, and I know it is painful. It is a bummer to have to wait for nearest caches to come up as we do review. It is a bummer that for a while you could not review caches at all late in the day on Saturday and Sunday. I do hope that by taking time to make sure it is right that we will indeed see a good long term solution.

 

Understand this too... I also eat and sleep geocaching. I know it is more than a game to many, just like college football is more than just a game to many (War Eagle). I do try to keep things in perspective though and I now plan ahead as much as possible. I hope things work out well and get smooth as glass.

[+sbell111]

It doesn't matter who's servers that we are talking about. Sometimes servers belch and need a swift kick to get back up and running. If this happens at night or on the weekend, someone needs to fix the problem. The idea that their should be someone on staff 24/7 to sit around the office on the off chance that a machine needs to be rebooted is unrealistic, in my opinion. Certainly, there are better things to spend that money on (like food).

 

Last week, I was at work early and I wanted to reference Markwell's FAQ for something or other. Shockingly, the page wouldn't load. Should I have fired off a message to Markwell demanding that he always sit next to his server, just in case it needed to be kicked? I think not.

 

The site works better than it did when I became a PM. At the time I bought me membership, it was working well enough to justify the expense. Given that it now works better, why would I complain that the commercial site sometimes goofs when I want to use it?

[+Team Cotati]

Excuse makers are very helpful.

 

Thank you for your continued efforts.

 

When I use to do consulting, whenever a customer complained about down-time, all you had to do was give them a quote to fix the problem... They didn't usually complain after that.

 

Beats heck out of delivering a reliable and available system.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+Team Cotati]

It doesn't matter who's servers that we are talking about. Sometimes servers belch and need a swift kick to get back up and running. If this happens at night or on the weekend, someone needs to fix the problem. The idea that their should be someone on staff 24/7 to sit around the office on the off chance that a machine needs to be rebooted is unrealistic, in my opinion. Certainly, there are better things to spend that money on (like food).

 

Last week, I was at work early and I wanted to reference Markwell's FAQ for something or other. Shockingly, the page wouldn't load. Should I have fired off a message to Markwell demanding that he always sit next to his server, just in case it needed to be kicked? I think not.

 

The site works better than it did when I became a PM. At the time I bought me membership, it was working well enough to justify the expense. Given that it now works better, why would I complain that the commercial site sometimes goofs when I want to use it?

 

This may shock you but in this day of technology, servers can, depending upon why and how they failed, automatically reboot. Failiing that affordable tools exist that will detect server unresponsivness and place phone calls to support techs who might be able to diagnose the problem remotely. Who was it that suggested that someone sit arrounf the office 24/7 waiting for servers to fail? That seems pretty silly to me and most unproductive.

 

I guess that it somewhat depends upon what type of service level you desire to provide to your user community as what dollar cost. At some point the cost of reliability and availability has to be factored into the day to day operations of an organization. This ought not be such a radical concept.

[+sbell111]

... I guess that it somewhat depends upon what type of service level you desire to provide to your user community as what dollar cost. At some point the cost of reliability and availability has to be factored into the day to day operations of an organization. This ought not be such a radical concept.

What makes you think that it hasn't been factored in? Perhaps TPTB have run the numbers and determined that the naked guy won't be willing to pay what it would cost? Edited November 26, 2007 by sbell111

[+Team Cotati]

... I guess that it somewhat depends upon what type of service level you desire to provide to your user community as what dollar cost. At some point the cost of reliability and availability has to be factored into the day to day operations of an organization. This ought not be such a radical concept.

What makes you think that it hasn't been factored in? Perhaps TPTB have run the numbers and determined that the naked guy won't be willing to pay what it would cost?

 

In all liklihood, it would be about the exact opposite of why you are so convinced that they have. And BTW, what would it cost? For unlike you, $100.00/month would be just a tad out of my league.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+sbell111]

... I guess that it somewhat depends upon what type of service level you desire to provide to your user community as what dollar cost. At some point the cost of reliability and availability has to be factored into the day to day operations of an organization. This ought not be such a radical concept.

What makes you think that it hasn't been factored in? Perhaps TPTB have run the numbers and determined that the naked guy won't be willing to pay what it would cost?

 

In all liklihood, it would be about the exact opposite of why you are so convinced that they have. And BTW, what would it cost? For unlike you, $100.00/month would be just a tad out of my league.

I'm sorry, but your post makes no sense.

[+ReadyOrNot]

... I guess that it somewhat depends upon what type of service level you desire to provide to your user community as what dollar cost. At some point the cost of reliability and availability has to be factored into the day to day operations of an organization. This ought not be such a radical concept.

What makes you think that it hasn't been factored in? Perhaps TPTB have run the numbers and determined that the naked guy won't be willing to pay what it would cost?

 

In all liklihood, it would be about the exact opposite of why you are so convinced that they have. And BTW, what would it cost? For unlike you, $100.00/month would be just a tad out of my league.

A 3300% increase? Ummmm.. Probably not.. I worked for a company that had a 100% up-time requirement because they were in the banking industry. They were constantly having problems, even after spending hundreds of millions of dollars on equipment. Unfortunately, that's just how technology is, like it or not. The problems they are having right now probably have more to do with growing pains than a lack of funding or resources.

[+Team Cotati]

... I guess that it somewhat depends upon what type of service level you desire to provide to your user community as what dollar cost. At some point the cost of reliability and availability has to be factored into the day to day operations of an organization. This ought not be such a radical concept.

What makes you think that it hasn't been factored in? Perhaps TPTB have run the numbers and determined that the naked guy won't be willing to pay what it would cost?

 

In all liklihood, it would be about the exact opposite of why you are so convinced that they have. And BTW, what would it cost? For unlike you, $100.00/month would be just a tad out of my league.

A 3300% increase? Ummmm.. Probably not.. I worked for a company that had a 100% up-time requirement because they were in the banking industry. They were constantly having problems, even after spending hundreds of millions of dollars on equipment. Unfortunately, that's just how technology is, like it or not. The problems they are having right now probably have more to do with growing pains than a lack of funding or resources.

 

Yeah and people who expect perfection are likely to be disapointed. Fortunately there usually exists some reasonable alternative to perfection that people can deal with. It is to each person to determine what that reasonableness level might be and whether or not they can afford it. However one thing is usually true, when the users of technology come into general agreement that a particular implementation is dificient in some regard, they are uaually correct.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+sbell111]

... I guess that it somewhat depends upon what type of service level you desire to provide to your user community as what dollar cost. At some point the cost of reliability and availability has to be factored into the day to day operations of an organization. This ought not be such a radical concept.

What makes you think that it hasn't been factored in? Perhaps TPTB have run the numbers and determined that the naked guy won't be willing to pay what it would cost?

 

In all liklihood, it would be about the exact opposite of why you are so convinced that they have. And BTW, what would it cost? For unlike you, $100.00/month would be just a tad out of my league.

A 3300% increase? Ummmm.. Probably not.. I worked for a company that had a 100% up-time requirement because they were in the banking industry. They were constantly having problems, even after spending hundreds of millions of dollars on equipment. Unfortunately, that's just how technology is, like it or not. The problems they are having right now probably have more to do with growing pains than a lack of funding or resources.

 

Yeah and people who expect perfection are likely to be disapointed. Fortunately there usually exists some reasonable alternative to perfection that people can deal with. It is to each person to determine what that reasonableness level might be and whether or not they can afford it. However one thing is usually true, when the users of technology come into general agreement that a particular implementation is dificient in some regard, they are uaually correct.

I think that you have missed that some people are perfectly happy with getting their PQs the day before, just in case. I don't think that there is as much 'general agreement' as you think there is.

[+mtn-man]

Me neither, or this topic would be 15 pages long.

[+Team Cotati]

Me neither, or this topic would be 15 pages long.

 

Excuses.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Me neither, or this topic would be 15 pages long.

 

Excuses.

 

Excuse:an explanation offered as a reason for being excused; a plea offered in extenuation of a fault or for release from an obligation, promise, etc.

 

No one is looking for a release from blame or obligation. No one is saying there is not a problem. Perhaps a different word would be more fitting, since you seem to like to repeat it.

[+mtn-man]

Me neither, or this topic would be 15 pages long.

 

Excuses.

No... fact.

[+WuffPack]

If I relied on GC.com as a means of income, I might be upset when they went down for a little bit.

If I relied on GC.com as a safety resource, I might be upset.

If I relied on GC.com as a means of communication (like these forums), I might be upset...

 

This is a game, people. We pay (if you do) a minimum amount for your montly usage of the site. I would bet that if you really wanted credit for the time lost, GC.com would give you the nickle. I think they work pretty hard for our enjoyment. That said, feedback is a gift that should be given freely, honestly, and often. Make sure your complements come with the same vigor as your complaints.

[+Team Cotati]

If I relied on GC.com as a means of income, I might be upset when they went down for a little bit.

If I relied on GC.com as a safety resource, I might be upset.

If I relied on GC.com as a means of communication (like these forums), I might be upset...

 

This is a game, people. We pay (if you do) a minimum amount for your montly usage of the site. I would bet that if you really wanted credit for the time lost, GC.com would give you the nickle. I think they work pretty hard for our enjoyment. That said, feedback is a gift that should be given freely, honestly, and often. Make sure your complements come with the same vigor as your complaints.

 

Tell you what. I'll give them the exact same number of Gold Stars as my employer gives me for doing my job every day and not messing up.

[+Too Tall John]

If I relied on GC.com as a means of income, I might be upset when they went down for a little bit.

If I relied on GC.com as a safety resource, I might be upset.

If I relied on GC.com as a means of communication (like these forums), I might be upset...

 

This is a game, people. We pay (if you do) a minimum amount for your montly usage of the site. I would bet that if you really wanted credit for the time lost, GC.com would give you the nickle. I think they work pretty hard for our enjoyment. That said, feedback is a gift that should be given freely, honestly, and often. Make sure your complements come with the same vigor as your complaints.

Tell you what. I'll give them the exact same number of Gold Stars as my employer gives me for doing my job every day and not messing up.

Ok, let's run with your boss analogy for a second...

 

I'm assuming your implication is that your boss gives you no "gold stars." On the other hand, do they complain all the time about what you are doing wrong?

 

If not, you should do the same.

 

If they do, think about if their complaints are helpful or hurtful. Do they make you more productive? Do they make you want to do more for your boss? Do they make life easier?

 

Or do they just annoy you?

[+Team Cotati]

I normally don't like repeating myself. However in this instance I think that it is warranted:

 

"I'll give them the exact same number of Gold Stars as my employer gives me for doing my job every day and not messing up."

[+Too Tall John]

I normally don't like repeating myself. However in this instance I think that it is warranted:

 

"I'll give them the exact same number of Gold Stars as my employer gives me for doing my job every day and not messing up."

Well, let me reword the question, since you apparently needed to respond more than you needed to read what I meant:

 

I'm assuming your implication is that your boss gives you no "gold stars." On the other hand, do they complain when you do something wrong?

 

Read the rest above. Think about it.

[+Team Cotati]

I normally don't like repeating myself. However in this instance I think that it is warranted:

 

"I'll give them the exact same number of Gold Stars as my employer gives me for doing my job every day and not messing up."

Well, let me reword the question, since you apparently needed to respond more than you needed to read what I meant:

 

I'm assuming your implication is that your boss gives you no "gold stars." On the other hand, do they complain when you do something wrong?

 

Read the rest above. Think about it.

 

Criminnie, it's never ending.

 

My employer does in fact give out 'gold stars', they just don't do it for performing at the expected level. Going the exta mile, contributing well above the expected AND not messing up in the process. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. And yes, you can safely assume that ever once in a while when I or others do mess up, they make certain that you know the level of their displeasure. You can refer to that as 'complaining' if you want.

 

Have mercy and think about it, ok?

[+Too Tall John]

I normally don't like repeating myself....

Criminnie, it's never ending...

You sound awfully exasperated with me for someone who won't answer my question.

 

Actually, you finally answered the first half. How about the second?

 

If they do Since they do, think about if their complaints are helpful or hurtful. Do they make you more productive? Do they make you want to do more for your boss? Do they make life easier?

 

Or do they just annoy you?

[+KoosKoos]

My employer does in fact give out 'gold stars', they just don't do it for performing at the expected level.

 

Ok, along these lines then...we need to define what is an "expected" level for geocaching.com. Many people believe it's 100% uptime. I think that's probably unreasonable for a site of this scale. Is it a pain when the servers hiccup? absolutely. Should Groundspeak take steps to minimize the risk and duration of such outages? absolutely.

 

Is the 99% availability an acceptable threshold for the amount of fees they collect? I think so.

 

(I have no idea what the yearly gc.com availability stat is...it might be higher or lower than the 99% I stated, but I still think it's acceptable.

 

Do you really think Groundspeak just blows if off when the site goes down? Their revenue stream is affected too. It's a cost/benefits issue...could they spend millions of dollars to maintain a near-perfect site? sure...but is it worth that?

Edited December 2, 2007 by KoosKoos

[+Team Cotati]

My employer does in fact give out 'gold stars', they just don't do it for performing at the expected level.

 

Ok, along these lines then...we need to define what is an "expected" level for geocaching.com. Many people believe it's 100% uptime. I think that's probably unreasonable for a site of this scale. Is it a pain when the servers hiccup? absolutely. Should Groundspeak take steps to minimize the risk and duration of such outages? absolutely.

 

Is the 99% availability an acceptable threshold for the amount of fees they collect? I think so.

 

(I have no idea what the yearly gc.com availability stat is...it might be higher or lower than the 99% I stated, but I still think it's acceptable.

 

Do you really think Groundspeak just blows if off when the site goes down? Their revenue stream is affected too. It's a cost/benefits issue...could they spend millions of dollars to maintain a near-perfect site? sure...but is it worth that?

 

Speaking of 'fees', what IS the amount of 'fees' that they collect?

[+sTeamTraen]

Is the 99% availability an acceptable threshold for the amount of fees they collect? I think so.

 

(I have no idea what the yearly gc.com availability stat is...it might be higher or lower than the 99% I stated, but I still think it's acceptable.

 

Given that the site is meant to be up 24/7, 99% uptime translates to 87.6 hours of downtime per (non-leap) year. I suspect that's not a million miles from the actual figure, although of course "downtime" can be read many ways ("is the whole site down if the WAP browser link is down? no, unless you're sitting more or less on top of the cache and need WAP for the hint" etc), and indeed the IT industry has several ways of measuring it.

 

Whatever the measure, though, getting to 99% is already a non-trivial exercise, but adding just .1 or .2 is hard (it's a 10% or 20% reduction in downtime), and adding 9s takes a lot of money.

[+KoosKoos]

My employer does in fact give out 'gold stars', they just don't do it for performing at the expected level.

 

Ok, along these lines then...we need to define what is an "expected" level for geocaching.com. Many people believe it's 100% uptime. I think that's probably unreasonable for a site of this scale. Is it a pain when the servers hiccup? absolutely. Should Groundspeak take steps to minimize the risk and duration of such outages? absolutely.

 

Is the 99% availability an acceptable threshold for the amount of fees they collect? I think so.

 

(I have no idea what the yearly gc.com availability stat is...it might be higher or lower than the 99% I stated, but I still think it's acceptable.

 

Do you really think Groundspeak just blows if off when the site goes down? Their revenue stream is affected too. It's a cost/benefits issue...could they spend millions of dollars to maintain a near-perfect site? sure...but is it worth that?

 

Speaking of 'fees', what IS the amount of 'fees' that they collect?

 

While the totals would fall into the "private business" category...for $30/year from those who choose to pay it, I don't expect a 100% uptime. I'd love it, but I don't think that's a reasonable expectation.

[+Ambrosia]

I always try to remember that Jeremy took on this site, never imagining that it would get so popular and big. He had another job, and didn't take this site to make a bunch of money. It eventually got big enough that he had to take it on full time and hire more and more employees. This wasn't necessarily a for revenue site, where he started everything to make a bundle of money, and that's all he cares about. This is a hobby/sport that he enjoyes, he's a cacher just like all of us are, and this is just a listing site for all of our geocaches.

 

The site was not arranged to handle such a big load, so they're having to change everything, and that's hard to do when everyone's using it all the time. Jeremy has always said that he wouldn't charge people to have an account and search for caches. Could you imagine what it would be like if everyone only had a free account?

 

I think that some people have unreasonable perceptions of what Groundspeak and geocaching are. If you look at it the way I outlined it above (from my very limited and foggy knowledge of the background and issues), perhaps it will be easier to have a better perspective and to not get so upset.

[+Cheminer Will]

Over the past couple of years, it has always been interesting to read about all the reasons behind the issue and the efforts being made to fix the problem. I am not as active in geocaching as I have been in the past so it is not a frequent source of frustration for me now.

 

But.... this is a complaint/topic that has been going on for a long time. Often the site is verrrry slow. Sometimes it is available and fast. Sometimes it will not load at all. That's just life at geocaching.com. Fortunately it is not a common issue at any of the other big web sites I frequent.

[+trainlove]

It's down, been down about the last hour, yes a whole hour.

12:46:40 EDT 071203.

WHY?

Is V.2 rolling out right now?

Are we going to have to put up with unresponsiveness for 2 months like last January due to server issues?

Are we going to have to put up with bugginess for 2 months like last June when what I'm calling V1.5 came out in steps and spurts without any testing?

[+LostMontanan]

It's down, been down about the last hour, yes a whole hour.

12:46:40 EDT 071203.

WHY?

Is V.2 rolling out right now?

Are we going to have to put up with unresponsiveness for 2 months like last January due to server issues?

Are we going to have to put up with bugginess for 2 months like last June when what I'm calling V1.5 came out in steps and spurts without any testing?

 

Yes.