Yes, this. It's tough when you've already played your "we messed up but we're making it right" card, and then you continue to not have it right.

Hosting service that cannot get basics right after a decade plus of solving these problems as an industry.

Are we even trying or just repeating ourselves because we don’t know what else to do?

How can the entire industry keep making the same basic errors?

“Let’s keep it simp… ohh nope we invented a Turing complete language and customer service is terri… wait do we have customer service?”

I get the world turning against SaaS lately.

Computers are so fast now, enthusiasts would be better served DIY; put a beige box in a local colo, use one of the big 3 for big business.

This is just starting to look disreputable and disrespectful to humanity itself putting such resources into one time bomb after another.

I just got gigabit bidirectional fiber at home and honestly if I were doing personal stuff or doing very early bootstrapping I'd just host from here with a good UPS. No it wouldn't be data center reliability but it'd work at least until it was ready to put in something more resilient.

You can pay for a business class fiber link too. It's about twice as expensive but they have guaranteed outage response times which is really what you pay for.

> Computers are so fast now,

Agreed

> enthusiasts would be better served DIY; put a beige box in a local colo

I mean, like, can I provision a zero ops bit of compute from <mystery colo provider> for $20/month?

Edit: looked up colo providers in my city- “get started in 24 hours, pick a rack and amperage, schedule a call now.”. Yeaaah, no. This is why people use cloud providers instead.

Patronizing to assume this is obscure wisdom at this juncture.

Scared customers seems a bit… puerile? In a Sunday school way? Are we not adults capable of rational discourse?

“Why is line not go up!!” still? Just continues to smell like busy work in deference to a politically mandated hallucination.

I appreciate the honest feedback. We could have done better communicating about the problem. We've been marking single host failures in the dashboard for affected users and using our status page to reflect things like platform and regional issues, but there's clearly a spot in the middle where the status we're communicating and actual user experience don't line up.

We've been adding a ton more hardware lately to stay ahead of capacity issues and as you would expect this means the volume of hardware-shaped failures has increased even though the overall failure probability has decreased. There's more we can do to help users avoid these issues, there's more we can do to speed up recovery, and there's more we can do to let you know when you're impacted.

All this feedback matters. We hear it even when we drop the ball communicating.

What hardware are you buying? Across tens of thousands of physical nodes in my environment, only a few would have "fatal" enough problems that required manual intervention per year. Yes we had hundreds of drives die a year, some ECC ram would exceed error thresholds, but downtime on any given node was rare (aside from patching, but we'd just live migrate KVM instances around as needed.

Maybe there needs to be a better "burn in" test setup for their new hardware, just to catch mistakes in the build prep and/or catch bad hardware?

Not that nothing will fail - but some manufacturers have just really good fault management, monitoring, alerting, etc. And even the simplest shit like SNMP with a few custom MIBs from the vendor (which theres some that do it better). Facilities and vendors that lend a good hand with remote hands is also nice, if you remote management infrastructure should fail. But out of band, full featured management cards with all the trimmings work so well. Some do good Redfish BMC/JSON/API stuff too on top of the usual SNMP and other nice builtin Easy Buttons. And today's tooling with bare metal and KVM, working around faults to be quite seamless. Even good NVME raid options if you just absolutely must have your local box with mirrored data protection, 10/40/100Gbps cards with a good libvirt setup to migrates large VMs in mere minutes, resuming on the remote end with nigh 1ms blip.

Good point. :)

I'm still wondering about their hardware acceptance/qualification though, prior to it being deployed. ;)

Yah presumably they put stuff through it's paces and give everything good fit and finish before running workloads. But failures do happen either way

Could you expand your answer to list vendors which you would recommend?

"it depends". Dell is fairly good overall, on-site techs are outsourced subcontractors a lot so that can be a mixed bag, pushy sales. Supermicro is good on a budget, not quite mature full fault management or complete SNMP or redfish, they can EOL a new line of gear suddenly.

Have you come across Fujitsu PRIMERGY servers before?

https://www.fujitsu.com/global/products/computing/servers/pr...

I used to use them a few years ago in a local data centre, and they were pretty good back then.

They don't seem to be widely known about though.

Have not - looks nice though. Around here, you'll mostly only encounter the Dell/Supermicro/HP/Lenovo. I actually find Dell to have acheived the lowest "friction" for deployments. You can get device manifests before the gear even ships, including MAC addresses, serials, out of band NIC MAC, etc. We pre-stage our configurations based on this, have everything ready to go (rack location/RU, switch ports, PDUs, DHCP/DNS). We literally just plug it all up and power on, and our tools take care of the rest without any intervention. Just verify the serial number of the server and stick it in the right rack unit, done.

> You can get device manifests before the gear even ships, including MAC addresses, serials, out of band NIC MAC, etc.

That does sound pretty useful.

So for yourselves, you rack them then run hardware qualification tests?