[ascar]

Does 99.995% [1] of hackernews sound reasonable enough to you?

The reality is a lot of systems (especially simple ones) run perfectly fine on a single server with next to no downtime and all the additional redundancies we introduce also add additional points of failures and without the scale that makes these necessary you might actually end up reducing your availability.

[1] https://hn.hund.io/

[kens]

> Does 99.995% [1] of hackernews sound reasonable enough to you?

How did you come up with that number? I looked at the link and just one of the outages listed on January 10 was 59 minutes. That alone makes the uptime worse than 99.99% for the entire year before it was halfway through January.

(99.995% means at most 26.3 minutes of downtime per year. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability#Percentage_c...)

[ascar]

it's the 30 day uptime statistic displayed on the website I linked.

if you click the history it says 98.452% over 365 days.

[midasuni]

That’s a pretty low level. That’s lower than my pi hole. But I wouldn’t consider my pihole to be anything other than best endeavours (99.1%). Two would be fine, but there are common points of failure which would limit the solution

[dekhn]

I can't see how hackernews is 99.995% if I get at least 30-40 "Can't serve your request" error pages a year.

[midasuni]

HN is on a pair of servers.

[ascar]

The second one is just a standby though and not in another region. And if I recall correctly dang mentioned at an outage that the failover to the standby is manual. But I'm not sure.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16076041

[borkyborkbork]

This so much this! Experience is such a wonderful thing.