[highfreq]

How can they claim 99.999% uptime, when they just had several hours of service outage? I'm not sure how long they've been providing DNS hosting, but by the most generous assumption this would be the entire 15 years of their existence. 99.999% allows them about 1.3 hours of outage in 15 years.

[breck]

> "Throughout our history, we have provided 99.999% uptime in our DNS infrastructure"

I think he's implying "until yesterday".

I've used GoDaddy for 10 years or so, and this is the first DNS outage I can remember.

That's an impressive record, imo.

(Personally I've largely switched off GoDaddy to Namecheap now, but not because of uptime, rather because I grew tired of the sucky GoDaddy website and sucky APIs)

[mikedouglas]

I think what they're trying to say is that 99% of the time, they have 99.999% uptime.

[JoeAltmaier]

Silly: 99% of the time they have 100% uptime.

[dllthomas]

60% of the time it works every time?

[JoeAltmaier]

Was responding to the silly parent post, claiming similar nonsense.

[dllthomas]

Yes, wasn't criticizing, just enjoying.

[devonbleak]

That's not how SLAs work.

Basically they're guaranteeing 99.999% uptime across some interval and you get some kind of compensation if/when they fail to meet it.

[highfreq]

I don't believe they have a 99.999% SLA. That was their historical up-time.

I just misread their statement. They probably meant the up-time before this incident.

"Throughout our history, we have provided 99.999% uptime in our DNS infrastructure. This is the level our customers expect from us and the level we expect of ourselves. We have let our customers down and we know it."

[donrhummy]

No, it would allow them 131 hours of downtime in 15 years: ( 365 days * 24 hours/day * 15 yrs ) * .001 = 131.4

[DougWebb]

99.999% uptime == 0.001% downtime 0.001% is a factor of 0.00001, not 0.001. Remember, % means 1/100th.