[rlpb]

> gmails uptime is about on par or better than

I see this argument a lot, and there is truth in it.

However, there is a key difference. My own machine's uptime is certainly lower, but I have some control over when the downtime is.

Google chose to push a change that accidentally broke things. If I have a critical deadline, I can choose not to push any changes to my systems at all. When you use a cloud provider, you lose this choice.

So the question isn't really about comparing uptimes as a single figure any more. What about uptime during defined critical periods?

Edit: people replying seem to have inferred that I'm saying that running your own email server is better than using Google Apps. I didn't say that. I'm just saying that in any comparison, there is more to "cloud" reliability than a single uptime figure, and so using a single uptime figure comparison is not helpful in such a debate. The control you have over update timing is an important consideration to make in the general "move to the cloud" case.

[Maakuth]

You're still dependent on your Intenet service provider's decisions. If your ISP decides to have some downtime while you've got a critical deadline, there's not much you can do to make your e-mail flow. And Google probably has less downtime than an average ISP.

Of course ISP maintenance doesn't keep you from using your local office applications and such, like Google downtime would if you used Docs.

[Xylakant]

Control as in you get to choose when hardware fails or zero-day exploits get released?

I hear that argument a lot, but you really need to invest a lot of time to provide a secure and reliable e-mail service. It just doesn't pay of in most cases. So yes, you can do it, but don't pretend it's a viable way to save money. I get to see hacked e-mail servers every couple of month.

[acdha]

What about things like critical deadlines coinciding with security updates? The constant background effort of supporting email is a rather unfavorable return on your time.