<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SLAs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ma.tt/2006/09/slas/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ma.tt/2006/09/slas/</link>
	<description>Unlucky in Cards</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:53:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4-alpha-19904</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lloyd D Budd</title>
		<link>http://ma.tt/2006/09/slas/#comment-191025</link>
		<dc:creator>Lloyd D Budd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:56:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photomatt.net/2006/09/15/slas/#comment-191025</guid>
		<description>A couple of minutes even is a lot different than 20 minutes. 100% should be closer to 100% than 20 minutes. And there there is also how many times a day, month, year it happens.

As Barry writes in his own post&#039;s comments &quot;Yes, everyone knows that 100% uptime is not possible, but a 100% uptime SLA is not all that unreasonable. The idea behind it is that that the figure â€œ100%â€ in your marketing material will generate enough revenue to more than offset the SLA credits that will be given out when there is an outage. I am just surprised that they didn&#039;t stand behind the SLA or that they interpreted it this way.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A couple of minutes even is a lot different than 20 minutes. 100% should be closer to 100% than 20 minutes. And there there is also how many times a day, month, year it happens.</p>
<p>As Barry writes in his own post&#8217;s comments &#8220;Yes, everyone knows that 100% uptime is not possible, but a 100% uptime SLA is not all that unreasonable. The idea behind it is that that the figure â€œ100%â€ in your marketing material will generate enough revenue to more than offset the SLA credits that will be given out when there is an outage. I am just surprised that they didn&#8217;t stand behind the SLA or that they interpreted it this way.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: drmike</title>
		<link>http://ma.tt/2006/09/slas/#comment-189998</link>
		<dc:creator>drmike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:42:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photomatt.net/2006/09/15/slas/#comment-189998</guid>
		<description>99.999% = 26 seconds in a month.

That&#039;s shorter than a reboot.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>99.999% = 26 seconds in a month.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s shorter than a reboot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Clark</title>
		<link>http://ma.tt/2006/09/slas/#comment-188916</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Clark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:20:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photomatt.net/2006/09/15/slas/#comment-188916</guid>
		<description>Five-nines reliability (99.999%) is the maximum practicable uptime.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Five-nines reliability (99.999%) is the maximum practicable uptime.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

