Outages Leave Google Apps Admins In the Hotseat 260
snydeq writes "This week's Google outages left several Google Apps admins in the lurch — and many of them are second-guessing their advocacy for making the switch to hosted apps, InfoWorld reports. The outages, which affected both Gmail and Apps, 'could serve as a deterrent to some IT and business managers who might not be ready to ditch conventional software packages that are installed on their servers,' according to the article. 'If we began to experience a similar outage more than about two or three business hours per quarter, we'd probably make Google Apps and Gmail a backup solution to a locally hosted mail system, if we used it at all,' said one Apps admin. 'And it would likely be years before we'd try a cloud-based collaborative system again from any vendor.' Coupled with recent Apple and Amazon cloud issues, these Google outages are being viewed by some as big wins for Microsoft."
why "big win" for microsoft ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:why "big win" for microsoft ? (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. Openoffice is still "locally installable" and 100% free on the applications front. And any business that relies on an outside free webmail service for their corporate email needs is just asking for trouble...loss of the service from time to time is but one of the gotchas.
Cheers,
Re:why "big win" for microsoft ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google Apps Premier is not free - it's 50$ per year per account.
I'm using it for my private mail. I like it. But i don't expect 100% uptime - especially for just 50Ã per year per account.
Re:why "big win" for microsoft ? (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be me. They frequently (3-4 time a month) loose half a day, as the under resourced, high maintanence, auto-destructing, sorry updated, blackhat honey pot splutters in the corner. I've lost two half days in the however many years I've used Gmail.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that you've got a horrible sys admin for your exchange server says a lot more about your company than it does about Microsoft and Exchange.
Fact is a lot of companies are running exchange w/ very little downtime at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:why "big win" for microsoft ? (Score:4, Informative)
No matter how good the admin is, running it on an old gaming machine provided by the CEOs Son won't give you five nines. You can be happy to get 80%.
How is that the fault of Exchange?
I've backed up our main Exchange engineer for over five years now in an enterprise environment, and out of our 10+ servers I've seen 2 outages. One was due to the system board on the server failing, so that leaves one where Exchange was at fault (one of the databases became corrupt and had to be restored from a backup).
I attribute this to three main factors:
- We run it on enterprise-class hardware.
- Despite rumours to the contrary, most of Microsoft's enterprise-level software is pretty solid, unless it's a 1.0 or 2.0 release.
- Our Exchange implementation was engineered by someone who knew what he was doing, and is now supported by someone who knows what he's doing.
Anyway, this article just makes me more convinced that we've done the right thing by sticking with our own system instead of using a hosted product.
Then why not Linux? (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux has been rock-solid from version 1. Version 3 isn't being planned yet.
The main complaint against Linux is that it requires someone who "knows what he is doing". If the same is required of Microsoft solutions, then why not just use Linux?
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a lots of locations around the global and not a central mail system and instead a lot of locals, where some are still POP and then something like google mail is still a much better solution.
Re:why "big win" for microsoft ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's a refutation of Google's business model (cloud based, for want of a better way of phrasing it) compared to Microsoft's (locally based tech).
I remain sceptical, as it it would seem that Google would have to be less reliable than local kit in order to make it worth switching back, even before you take into account extra costs for doing it locally. (How much more do you want to spend to get an extra hour per quarter in reliability?)
Nevertheless, IANASA so I don't know the data behind this decision.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been quite a few years (err, back in 2001 if memory serves) since I've used microsoft products. Back then *only* two or three hours of downtime per quarter would have been a dream. How are they for reliability these days? I hear the OS side stays up a lot better than win2000 used to. What about the Office suite? Does it still crash every couple of hours and hose work?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
OS stays up heck alot of better and Office 2007 is pretty stable. I haven't heard of it crashing at complete random hosing up work. When it does crashes for no reason, it's generally the computer is hosed up with Spyware and Viruses pretty bad. Exchange 2007 is stable and unless you use it in some wierd way that Microsoft doesn't recommend, it stays up most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
There's something to be said for being responsible for your own problems. When you outsource, you expect 100% reliability. When it fails, you are helpless. There is nothing you can do. When phone calls come streaming in, all you can say is "I don't know" when people ask when it will be up again. That makes you look bad.
If you are handling it yourself, you know what's going on. You are responsible if it fails. You're not twiddling your thumbs waiting for someone else to fix the problem. You can give
Re:why "big win" for microsoft ? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are only two IT solutions out there in the minds of too many people: Microsoft, and non-Microsoft.
To go with Microsoft is the easy, sure road. It is the standard. It is what is expected, what is known to be safe, what will always work. Any problems you encounter here are met with "well, computers always have problems don't they?"
To go with non-Microsoft is hard and uncertain. It is not expected, nor "the standard", and suspected to be extremely unsafe. The smallest problem will be countered with "you and your stupid ideas. Now go and call LocalRetailerInc for a certified Microsoft solution, and be glad I don't fire your ass over this fiasco!"
Google is not Microsoft, so according to the business logic described above, if it doesn't work the only possible alternative is to use Microsoft.
Re:why "big win" for microsoft ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Non-Microsoft can be :
I think the basic problem is impatience. I can understand that people want for business purposes something that is quickly implemented, but my experience is that when a Microsoft implementation is chosen, you have two long-term issues : you will time and time again have to solve the same problems over and over, and you can be sure that Microsoft will try to pressure you into upgrades, willing or not.
My experience with Linux and associated programs is this. Over time, everything gets better and better. Sometimes, you might need some time to investigate a problem and solve it, but once solved, it will not recur again (be sure that you have a good system to record such findings, but that would be same when using Microsoft).
I have already three people (not much, yes, but important for me) using Linux : my father, my brother (who shares with my father's PC) and my sister. Unless there is a hardware problem, I can be sure that I do not have to solve software issues on a regular basis, only help them with functional questions : what software to use and how to use it.
They use on a regular basis :
I am pretty sure that for most parts of a business, this would be enough.
Now, I think that the usage of Exchange is more of a perception thing, than a real technical obstacle. At my work, Lotus Notes was swapped for Exchange, but I do not consider this a progress, as it reminds me too much of PCTools 4.0 or 5.0 (about 1990) : I really do not see anything innovative in this area (and while some people here seem to loathe Lotus Notes (mostly without any reasons given), it was much faster than Exchange, I find speed very important for computer programs).
Anyone here which as implemented or is using alternatives to Exchange ?
Re: (Score:3)
I keep hearing this argument over and over, and it doesn't hold water. Every industry has its own set of "industry standard" applications (aka "vertical stack") which are never easily replaceable and are always a core requirement to how the companies in that industry do their work.
Examples:
Re: (Score:2)
I really have no idea how the parent got modded (Score:4, Funny), it should rather be (Score:5, Insightful)!
I couldn't agree more with the point he's making. Most of the CIOs I know would rather go blind-foldedly with a Microsoft solution than making an informed choice about which system would suit them best.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its only a big win if Microsoft don't have similer problems.
I'm personally very dubious about these online apps as anything but utilities for occasional use.
The main issue for me is that they exists primarily to benefit the hosting company (google, Microsoft or whoever). We don't need them, they need us to use them, otherwise they can't make money from us.
The current 'install on local machine' application model works perfectly well for end users, but there's less profit for them if you can buy something the
Re:why "big win" for microsoft ? (Score:4, Insightful)
My suspicion would be that google hits higher reliability numbers than many in-shop setups, particularly small ones; but the feeling of sitting there, twiddling your thumbs, and waiting for the remote service over which you have no control to come back up is a terrible one. It is much nicer to have to fix a local problem, which requires more effort; but makes you master of your fate(to the degree that anybody ever is).
The smaller, but ultimately more intractable, issue for remote hosted stuff is that it necessarily suffers more potential points of failure than does local stuff. If google screws up, google goes down. If somebody between my desktop and google screws up, google is down to me. If WAN goes down, but LAN stays up, local apps are still substantially useful(since a vast amount of email and document shuffling is company internal); but remote stuff is useless.
Incredible Expectations (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently Google is expected to hit that level of uptime all while charging either nothing for their standard edition or $50 per user per year for the premier.
I wonder how much downtime the companies that are using Google Apps would experience if they had to pay for their own redundancy?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Depending on the size of your company, you can have 0 unexpected downtime with a single server, if you are lucky.
Statistics don't matter for the individual case.
We have many customers with SBS Server or smaller Windows environments with just redundant Domain Controllers, and out of our entire customer base, we only have one or two unexpected downtimes per year.
Of course this doesn't invalidate your point it all - it just may explain where the execs delusional ideas come from.
No planned downtime? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about your planned downtime? If you're running Windows, you're rebooting to install patches on a regular basis or you're running unpatched systems. What about software installs?
In the context of the article, do you think the users of Google Apps (or any users) would be happy with, "Oh, no you don't understand. This is PLANNED downtime. This doesn't affect you or our downtime numbers."
you can have 0 unexpected downtime with a single server, if you are lucky.
You can win the lottery too, if you are lucky. How many people win the lottery though?
Re: (Score:2)
Two completely different things (planned vs unplanned downtime). Planned downtime in your own corporate data center is an annoyance sure, but since it is planned it can be sure to be done at times not effecting or with minimal effect to the company. Very different animal from unplanned downtime. Planned downtime on large hosted services may be comparable to unplanned downtime as Google, Yahoo, etc have never asked my company when would be a convenient time for planned downtime. However, in an internal en
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.. but how many people PLAY the lottery hoping to get something for nothing.
It's not just email. (Score:2)
GMail was down and that's "just" email as you say, but it was also Google Apps. Many businesses depend on that for their word processing, spreadsheeting and other Microsoft Office replacement needs.
The chance of having a single server run through a year is much, much higher than winning the lottery.
Sure, if you don't include planned downtime. But interconnected networks require higher security which requires regular patching which makes having a single server
Re: (Score:2)
That depends. What OS is it running?
Must work in small shops (Score:3, Interesting)
The position you're touting is completely foreign to me. I don't want to discount it, I just think it must be because you work for a small company and don't have any experience administering widely used web sites.
Even for medium sized companies, I have to imagine that "out of hours" are few and far between.
Re: (Score:2)
Size, scale, criticality of the systems don't matter. If it is planned you can take steps to mitigate the risks, if it is unplanned you cannot to the same level simple as that. That isn't to say you cannot mitigate risks associated with unplanned down times with redundant systems, etc but it it is planned you can always mitigate further ensuring all critical staff are on site, etc, etc.
Down time is down time, but the risks associated with down time can be mitigated to different levels depending on if it i
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
downtime (Score:2)
we only have one or two unexpected downtimes per year.
Just like Google. You're making the parent's point nicely.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Depending on the size of your company, you can have 0 unexpected downtime with a single server, if you are lucky.
The key phrase here is "if you are lucky".
The whole point about building a system which is designed to have zero downtime is that it doesn't depend upon luck in order to achieve that level of uptime.
Re:Incredible Expectations? (Score:4, Interesting)
Expecting five-9 or 0 downtime for a system used by only ONE company might be a very high expectation with a high cost vs. usage obtained from it afterwards.
But how many companies rely on Google's systems? When you offer your application or suite to the whole nation or WORLD, and campaign for its use - then YES, you do need to keep a very near-0 downtime to be really successful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The part that is being misunderstood is simply this. Instead of just complaining about Google Apps... compare it to the alternatives.
How many companies rely on Microsoft Outlook with Microsoft Exchange Server? When you offer an application or suite to the whole nation or WORLD, and campaign for its use - then YES, you do need to keep a very near-0 downtime to be really successful.
Except, Microsoft Exchange (while often reliable) does have its moments. Sometimes, just from getting clogged by tons of spam,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That depends on the number of users / server. Suppose a server costs 2000 dollar/year to run. You would need 2000/50 = 40 concurrent users/year (excluding managing the systems).
Well, 40 is not a lot. A decent application can service 1000 users/system. Maybe a user is online for 8 hours a day. This means you can service 3000 users per server. Maybe you need a db server and a failover ratio of 2. That still serves you 750 users/server on average.
Suppose you have a 90% ratio of demo to payed subscriptions. Tha
Google will release app servers (Score:5, Interesting)
Google's Service Level Agreement (Score:5, Informative)
Google has a Service Level Agreement. [google.com] If they have excessive downtime, you can get up to 15 days of free service. No refunds.
Tell that to your boss. It's not your problem. That's what the company signed up for. Welcome to "cloud computing".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When Google Apps or Gmail goes down, exceedingly rare as it is, people threaten to "abandon the cloud". I wish we had threatened to abandon the lame infrastructure that our parent company refused to update or spend money properly maintaining. For my $0, Google does one hell of a better job than the three hel
Bandwagon in the Cloud (Score:3, Insightful)
I've worked in a few companies with large IT budgets and have experienced more downtime in those environments than I have so far "in the cloud." I think the biggest problem with
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously now, WTF? Why is everyone acting like they've never had a BSOD on windows, a failed harddrive, a driver problem, or a vendor discontinue support?
However, the cloud doesn't make these problems go away. If I have a failed hard drive, I still have downtime while I go find a different machine to use or repair the one I have.
Also remember that it isn't just the servers you have to worry about. There are a lot of miles of fiber out there and a lot of idiots with back-hoes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As an IT professional this cuts like a double edged sword. On the one side, you can always tell that CIO or whatever that "this is what you bought" when they went over the IT departments head and made "everything" a "web app". On the other hand, it sucks because as an IT professional, you want your shit to just work.
Lets face it, like EVERYTHING ELSE, web apps has its place. Maps, dictionaries (wiki's), and collaborative tools belong on the web. Word processing, spread sheets, presentation software... belon
Networks crash just like software (Score:2)
Are the proponents of cloud apps so stupid they don't realise that a network can go down just as easily as a local app? I wouldn't mind betting that Google's outage rate is considerably less than the amount of time the average Word user has to go without Word for some reason.
What you have to take into account is the failure rate of all network segments between you and Google (or wherever). With the best will in the world you're not going to get 100%, ever. It's just a matter of comp
Re:Networks crash just like software (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand how anyone in this day and age can justify going with remotely-hosted applications. The ability to reach remote servers can be taken away even by morons and botnets who might not like your company.
In my opinion, remote web hosting of applications that are presumably important for a company to be able to run is just asking for trouble. I wonder how many fingers will get pointed when some critical deadline looms and nobody can run their applications to be able to meet it.
It's reckless and risky for business to expose themselves like that. As others have pointed out, OpenOffice is free and it is good. Why waste money on training people on both the Google (or other) remotely-hosted application and OpenOffice (if that is your emergency backup). Just train people on OpenOffice and now you don't need a backup plan in case the network goes down and you can't run the remote stuff.
Remote applications may have been a solution before the Internet got nasty but these days, running business-critical stuff over it when you don't need to does not make sense to me.
Maybe I'm missing the huge economic advantages that justify the unknown and growing risk, but I see network (Internet) applications as being at huge risk for outages, a security risk, a data privacy risk, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Any monoculture has huge risks. If you want to improve reliability, you provide diverse, (at least partially) redundant systems and DR plans as to what you do if systems go down.
A DR solution isn't "someone else's problem."
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it would even be worthwhile to encrypt and push backups up to Google, or Amazon, or anyone else offering storage solutions. That could make resuming operations much easier depending on local backup integrity, etc.
Storing at Google would be kind of a setup to transitioning to Google Apps if the need came up.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What you're saying makes sense for something like google apps, but it's exactly backwards for something like gmail. A small organization
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And I think we're all starting to get a feeling for what other com
Re: (Score:2)
http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=4903 [sans.org]
But lots of other computer security places are reporting it as a real cyber attack by Russia against Georgia. It really doesn't matter all that much where the attack is coming from - the end result is the sa
big wins for M$... (Score:2)
Where are the stories about the outage itself? (Score:5, Interesting)
I scan Slashdot nearly every day and didn't remember seeing anything about outages at Google this past week. A search through the story history confirmed that fact. So I thought I'd visit google.com and see what Google itself had to say. Nothing on the blog; nothing in the press section.
So why is this the first time these outages have been discussed here? From reading the article it appears we're talking about multiple outages over the past couple of weeks. Doing a Google search for "google outages" brings up one blog posting about these recent events. The blog posting includes this unsourced quotation, "Google spokesman Andrew Kovacs said via e-mail that 'a small number' of Gmail users and 'some' Apps users were impacted by the problem, which is still outstanding and being worked on as of 5:30 p.m. U.S. Eastern Time on Friday."
So all these events seem rather shrouded in mystery. How big was the outage? What explanations did Google give for the outage? I've certainly had servers go down, lost network connectivity, etc., etc., but I don't maintain huge server farms with enormous redundancy and multiple high-bandwith connections to the Internet. I don't recall search on Google ever going down; what's up with gmail and Apps?
The suspicious among us might start to think that outside parties might be responsible. After all, if companies start migrating to the "cloud," disrupting those services could have a substantial, economy-wide impact.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There was a GMail outage on Monday, which was reported in their blog:
[blog entry] [blogspot.com]
I've read rumors about other Google Apps outages later last week, but nothing official and saw no evidence of them myself.
Re: (Score:2)
So gmail has its own blog; you'd be hard-pressed to discover that fact on the "About Google [google.com]" page. You can find a link to it on the Google Blog [blogspot.com] page, but it's buried among dozens of other blogs.
So I did miss this one, but it's not like Google felt the need to explain themselves in a visible manner.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There aren't any gDoc outages that I've seen. The stories so far are about gmail outages, and it's leading people to question whether gDocs will suffer the same.
That said, I don't remember the last time I've had any Google service down. It happens but not so often. My problem is that my internet service is a tad flaky, in part because wireless is my only partly decent broadband option.
And that flakiness leads me to avoid "cloud" computing. You're relying on a service that has no credible assurances of u
I did not even notice it... (Score:5, Informative)
Those IT manager using the free service and expecting mission critical uptime should really go out more often and get a grip on reality.
Let's see, to set up my own five/nine email servers I would need at least two hosting location on different backbone, each of them should have at least two redundant servers. And of course I should have one spare that I can ship express whenever one fail.
Fixed Cost (Investment)
Monthly Recurring Cost
Implementation time
Of course I pulled the numbers out of my hat but it should be enough to show that there is no way a SOHO will ever have the mean to do it and that it is unrealistic to expect that kind of service for free or cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and imagine a company that doesn't have the money to do this and has just one sever with perhaps some cheap backup MX somewhere.
Google apps is just the best solutions for this ...
Re: (Score:2)
Google Apps is as far as email hosting goes a few orders of magnitude better than what any ISP cares to provide. It's a god sent gift to any SOHO. Probably not the ideal solution for a fortune 500 or companies with privacy issue (lawyers, Al-qaeda).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I am currently in the process of starting a new company. At the moment we only have four persons as staff, two if which (including me) work mostly from home.
We could never afford a dedicated server at this time.
Signing up for Google Apps was a no brainer for us and we are very happy with it so far.
Re: (Score:2)
If cables get cut, you won't be able to access GMail or Google Apps either.
You still have that problem, and in addition, you have to add the reliability problems at Google's end.
The Illusion of Control (Score:5, Interesting)
We have all seen it. Ebay a couple of years ago going down due to Oracle corruption. Royal Bank of Canada failure due to an improper software upgrade. Now, Google with Gmail and other Google Apps failing. All of these organizations were geared towards having the highest uptimes available and failed spectacularly.
Whether you host your own or use someone else its the illusion of control that somehow clouds our judgment into believing that it would somehow be different if I did it. Example: Is it better to drive or fly? Pure numbers state that its safer to fly on a commercial carrier by an order of magnitude but somehow we feel safer when we drive. Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not the world is full of 6 sigma events. As long as you are doing everything you can and within your budget when your hosting your own apps or auditing your provider to ensure they have, backup systems, redundancy, offsite bunker, etc. then you have done everything you can to prepare for this inevitability.
In a lot of ways designing systems is like playing poker. You can play your hand perfectly, design all the systems redundancy and recovery you like, but sometimes even after all that your opponent (risk) draws a lucky card on the river to beat you. Just because you got beat doesn't mean you shouldn't continue to play the same way, it just means you hit one of those events that you cannot plan.
Re: (Score:2)
The term you're looking for is a Black Swan Event [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
We have all seen it. Ebay a couple of years ago going down due to Oracle corruption. Royal Bank of Canada failure due to an improper software upgrade. Now, Google with Gmail and other Google Apps failing. All of these organizations were geared towards having the highest uptimes available and failed spectacularly.
Two of the most commonly missed points about high availability are simplicity and use the basic tools first. HA solutions are often complex, error prone and ignore the basics such as good system management practices. And when the complexity goes wrong, it is a mess.
For example, many systems in need of HA share storage on a SAN that is changing daily for other systems in the big SAN cloud. If it was important, why not directly attach the disk? Must everything be on a SAN to keep the egos happy? No cabl
power (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think you can even get a SLA from the power company.
Google Apps went down for 3 hours.
Shit happens.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're willing to pay for it, you certainly can.
Rethinking Google (Score:5, Insightful)
We ran into one of these "gotcha" features in hosted Gmail that's been giving me fits and it all started with a simple mistake. I misspelled a user name. You can change the spelling in the admin module, but it doesn't change the spelling in the contacts and the misspelling still showed up when she logged in. So I tried deleting the user name and recreating the account.
Big mistake.
When you delete a user name you can't recycle it for five days, which pushed us past our roll out date. Their crip work-around is creating a mailing list with that user name. But that has its own set of problems, especially when trying to migrate a large number of users. There's no support unless you get the premium edition. So now we're stuck in the position of paying for support on a service we're not certain will work for us. I'm not inclined to throw money at something to see if it will work when what we're already paying for is working.
Unfortunately, it was one of our key sales people who already had that account name on her business cards. Rolling without her is a non-starter.
It's frustrating because I'm the one who recommended Google and I feel really let down. It's a stupid problem that shouldn't exist in the first place. Even if there's a good reason for it, there should be a giant warning banner with a flashing red neon border warning you that deleting a user results in a five day lock out. Actually, it's been more than five days and I still can't recreate the account.
This one niggling little incident is making me rethink hosted applications. So, yeah, it does sort of benefit MS. Not in our case, we're using hosted SendMail instead of Exchange, but if this type of "feature" deters other companies already using MS solutions, then yeah. Who wants to take a chance on looking bad? There will still be outages with any solution but no one gets fired for recommending MSFT. There's a certain period of time that users are looking for an excuse not to like a new service, just because it's different. If you can get past that time frame, then a small outage can be overlooked. But those first few months have to be smooth. Maybe not flawless, but close to it.
It would almost be better if the free version was a trial and corporate users could get support from day one. This is just maddening. Shape up, Google.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I feel for you.
I'm trying to set up a collaborative network for a small non-profit organization. Right now, 'free (at least) as in beer' is not an option for any such tool.
However great Gmail's interface, Google Apps is not really ready for serious corporate/pro team use IMHO.
You may recall that up until a few days or weeks ago, members contacts were not automatically populated for new accounts--everyone had to manually fill them in for keeps. Although that was fixed, there's no way to create and propagate
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its Google's fault you set everything up at virtually the last minute?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That makes little to no sense. It sounds to me that, in general, you are just second-guessing using technology at all.
Think about it.
Imagine there was some sort of known flaw in Outlook, Exchange, or some other email-based application. Then, imagine this flaw came at a terrible time for you, right when you were dealing with an important client.
Would your response be, "It's a stupid problem that shouldn't exist in the first place. This one niggling little incident is making me rethink software."?
Again, it
Re: (Score:2)
is sure nice when John Smith has an email called john.wmith, that sure makes someone that works in marketing/sales super happy.
train crash analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Cloud apps have the same problem. When google apps or EC2 go does, it's news.
irrational (Score:2, Informative)
The amount of downtime each individual user experiences from their local Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office installations is far higher than the few hours per year people may experience with hosted apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I see, Microsoft's paid corporate moderators are in full force again.
I'm not being sarcastic, though: add up the number of hours you spend installing, upgrading, and maintaining Windows and Office locally, and compare it with Google's downtime. In fact, just waiting for Microsoft Office to load probably adds up to more downtime.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's true, but there's another side to it; imagine a company with 500 employees. Each employee has their own workstation. Now imagine 1% of those are down constantly. That means five employees will, at any given moment, not be able to perform any work. That's an annoyance, but if a workstation is down for on average 1 hour, then it's still ok.
Now, the important thing to remember here; It's never the same five employees suffering from downtime, and the company as a whole still keeps doing what it does best
Give me a break (Score:4, Insightful)
If my MS computers could have only 3 hours of downtime a quarter I would be really happy. I used to work for an IT company and they primarily used MS servers for their clients. Big mistake. MS products are a nightmare. Their clients would have been happy with 3 hours of downtime instead of days and days down dealing with MS server issues. I would only avoid cloud computing if there were serious concerns with privacy or hacking.
Maybe not a big wing for MS (Score:2)
http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/crm/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=172900624 [informationweek.com]
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9985201-7.html [cnet.com]
If MS really gets on the band wagon, they will be in the same boat as the other providers. In fact it will be worse due to their lack of institutional competence and the fact that they will be charging $$$$$$ for the service. If one copy of Word crashes, no problem. If an entire large companies version of Word crashes then it won't be long before people start screaming bloody
Re: (Score:2)
The uptime percentage is very clear... (Score:5, Informative)
The sign-up page for Google Apps Premier says you get 99.9% uptime. That's about 1/3 of a day downtime per year, or a couple of hours per quarter.
Google seems to be managing to hit that 99.9% uptime, just not exceed it. VERY few in-house e-mail systems actually manage 99.9% uptime, especially when you consider scheduled maintenance and downtime (remember, Google's 99.9% is for all downtime)
In fact, I have seen very few Exchange systems that manage much more than 99% uptime. However, for those organizations, there are other compelling advantages to Exchange.
Re: (Score:2)
Why blame Google ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love being the asshole, but let's be honest here: how many in-house systems actually deliver better uptime than Google ?
Not that many. If they did, all us sysadmins would be out of a job. Apps are not perfect. The fact that you can pay Google a few pennies to manage your email, even with some downtime, makes it several orders of magnitude cheaper than an in-house solution for most people.
Give them a break, people can survive without email for a few hours.
Migrated in Dec 2007 (Score:3, Interesting)
I migrated my company of 80 users to Google Apps hosted email about a year ago, and yeah, sometimes there has been interimitent issues. People want to use it like Exchange via IMAP, but there are quirky issues, like Thunderbird sending the wrong delete command, Thunderbird somehow corrupting the user's password (the only way to correct is to login to the user's account on the hosted Gmail site), etc. So there definitely are some quirks sometimes.
That said, it's free. Somebody a few posts back posted the cost of an RHEL install with server costs etc. Using Exchange, the price increases even moreso (license costs, CALs, etc.). Ultimately, you're getting a hosted, web-based email solution with the capability for shared calendars and document collaboration, all for absolutely $0.00.
Free vs. $20k+ solution? In my oh-so-humble-opinion, users can deal with (and quite frankly, should continue to periodically expect) some downtime.
Nothing wrong with hosted apps... (Score:2)
just host them in your own datacenter, not at google. This makes administration and scaling pretty much effortless, I would think. I assume that google sells an appliance for exactly this? If not they are missing a huge opportunity.
Google Apps are actually quite good (Score:2, Informative)
I'm a professional writer and a recent convert to Google apps. I've been using Gmail since its inception for my business and personal email, and have recently been investigating using Google Docs. The word processor started off as little more than a text editor but nowadays is pretty balanced in terms of features.
The main benefit is that it's all cross-platform, and I haven't got to worry about where my docs are stored (no messing about with a USB key stick, for example). I can access my work from any compu
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Google vs. MSFT (Score:2)
trusting a third party (Score:2, Informative)
NOT a "big win for Microsoft"... (Score:3, Insightful)
... but rather a big win for locally installed and controlled "personal software", as well as - HOPEFULLY - another loss for the evil forces of greed trying to indoctrinate users to the concept of a software subscription model.
Selling software as a subscription is the REAL reason why companies like Microsoft, Google, and so many others are experimenting with Web apps. It's their latest attempt to re-brand software as "content" and convince people to pay for it every month, just like they do cable TV. If they succeed, software publishers will be making far more profit than they do now, and their accountants will be boastful about how regular and predictable the cashflow is.
Just say no to Web apps and every other attempt to sell software as subscriptions.
You can't do it better than Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you honestly believe that you or your employees are going to build a system with higher availability than Google? In the magical fantasy world we all wish we lived in, you may have the budget, skill, manpower, and infrastructure resources to do this. In the real world it is not even remotely possible. I know how much it sucks when your system is down and there's nothing you can do but wait on some status dashboard to from Red to Green. That said, we should recognize that while being frustrated at this lack of control is normal, that doesn't mean you actually could do it better. It's easy to say "this would have never happened if we were self-hosted" while never thinking about the bullets you dodged by running hosted applications.
That means you, as a single customer, are insignificant. And that shows daily when dealing with any large service provider.
The only thing that my service provider should care about is the availability of the platform. I am completely insignificant, but the only reason my hosted app would be down is if the platform is down, and that sure as hell is significant to them. The advantage of hosted applications and cloud computing is that no one needs to ever look at or touch my app, the platform is all that matters.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The system being completely down is one point.
But what about annoying behaviour, bugs, changes, etc.?
If you're self hosted, you'll have people looking into solving the problem and actually trying to do so. In the end, it might not happen because the cost may to high or because of something else.
When you call Google you'll reach some guy in india that doesn't give a shit about your problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Also have to remember Google (or any host) isn't the only variable. Every company between you and Google (from your personal ISP through all providers up to Google) also has to have the same uptime as Google for you to be able to benefit from Google's uptimes. Doesn't matter is Google's servers are up 100% if companies between you and Google don't also meet that.
You CAN do it better than Google (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you honestly believe that you or your employees are going to build a system with higher availability than Google?
Why, yes, I do. I've worked as an enterprise technical architect for 2 of the baby bells and a 3 hour outage is outrageous.
I've designed systems that will fail over within 2 minutes with with under 30 seconds of data loss. The users just need to re-login and the load balancers (also redundant) will redirect them to a different data center 600 miles away from their primary location.
This solution is possible regardless of the crap code provided. And when you build the entire network, you know where the wea
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Which is worse, three hours of unavailability with no data loss, or 30 seconds of data loss every time you fail over? Redundancy is a lot easier if you are willing to tolerate 30 seconds of data loss on fail over.
It is a major misunderstanding to assume, that redundancy protects against crappy code. If you run a crappy piece of code you are likely
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
my DSL was down for FIVE DAYS recently due to flooding. The brilliant bell decided to place ALL their DSL centers in the state within 2 blocks of wherever the local river was. D'oh. We got a "500 year flood" and it buried every single one of them.
If 3 hours is outrageous, what does three days classify as?
The irony? I used my gmail while they were down.
They have yet to restore my "backup dialup account", a month later. Sure, 56k isn't exactly a good backup, but they didn't even have THAT.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you honestly believe that you or your employees are going to build a system with higher availability than Google? In the magical fantasy world we all wish we lived in, you may have the budget, skill, manpower, and infrastructure resources to do this. In the real world it is not even remotely possible. [...]
Google has to run a massively sized setup catering to a vast diversity of customer types. Sure, they have more manpower and know-how than my employer's IT dept. But they have to distribute this manpower across a very wide field, working on dozens of products and issues in parallel. They have to deal with and prepare for basically any issue imaginable to the IT savvy part of mankind.
My employer's IT infrastructure, communications system and document/information management system are tailored to our needs. We
YES, you can do it better than Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmmm..... not long after introduction Google apps have 15 hours of unplanned downtime. We have apps that have been deemed critical and have had zero unplanned downtime since introduction (knock on wood). Our system was designed for absolute maximum 1 hour RTO and 1/2 hour RPO. Thus far, we haven't had to actually use DR plan in real life, but tests show we beat those numbers.
I'm sure Google "can" build better systems than I have, but like any other company they did a cost/benefit and decided what they h
Re:You can't do it better than Google (no troll) (Score:4, Interesting)
Our mail platform has beaten google in uptime and security "bugs" for the past 40 months. Why? I attribute it to using proven technologies and not everyone wanting an account being able to get one: we charge every system user. You would be surprised how much this cuts down on spammers/excessive usage.
Google has had their mail in beta for years. The last time I checked SMTP was ratified as an RFC over a decade ago.
Re:You can't do it better than Google (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you honestly believe that you or your employees are going to build a system with higher availability than Google? In the magical fantasy world we all wish we lived in, you may have the budget, skill, manpower, and infrastructure resources to do this. In the real world it is not even remotely possible.
Do I believe it? You betcha! While my company doesn't have 100% uptime for every employee all the time, we haven't suffered an across-the-board outage of a critical system (i.e. email, ERP, core business applications, etc.) in the 11 years that I've been here. Sure, we'll lose an email server once in a while, but we have many such servers, so the loss of a single system only impacts a few thousand employees tops. That's far better than impacting ALL our employees if Google has an outage. And don't get me started about the idea of not being able to do word processing just because a WAN link is down. How on earth could you run a business that way???
And it's possible to provide uptime even in the event of widespread events, such as flooding, tornadoes, etc. We have multiple datacenters, geographically dispersed. Each center has multiple Internet connections through multiple providers carefully chosen such that the lines go to different cities (i.e. one link to Chicago, one to Denver). Similarly, our power is connected to multiple grids, with the feeds coming in on opposite ends of the buildings. Critical centers have on-site generators spec'd to handle 100% load of the datacenter and requisite support stations, plus enough battery backup to allow for all systems to continue running between loss of grid feed and when the generators are spun up, not to mention on-site diesel sufficient for several days of operations and contracts to get more as needed.
Was this cheap? Not in the least. Was it worth it? Definitely. We kept our main datacenter running without interruption during a week that saw multiple weather events (i.e. tornadoes, flooding, lightning-related power loss, etc.) when every building around ours for multiple miles was without power.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, everybody keeps saying this, but it doesn't match up with my experience. If you're running a company of ~25 people or less, such that a decent server and quality colocation are likely out, let alone redundant server hardware, then yeah, you're almost certainly going to have better reliability in the cloud.
Over the past four years, however, my systems at companies in the ~100 employee range, with redundant servers in quality colo with offsite backups, but no dedicated DR setup, have averaged more
Re: (Score:2)
Over the past four years, however, my systems at companies in the ~100 employee range, with redundant servers in quality colo with offsite backups, but no dedicated DR setup, have averaged more than one full 9 better uptime than Google/Amazon, for pretty similar pricing (to $50/user/year, eg with Zimbra $28/user/yr allowing $22/user/year for admin time, hardware, and colocation fees).
How are you running such a system on only $2200/year for admin time, hardware, and colocation fees? This seems to me to be at least an order of magnitude too low.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you honestly believe that you or your employees are going to build a system with higher availability than Google?
Our qmail/vpopmail based mail server is much more reliable than google. So why have we moved many accounts to Google if we have better availability? Because Google rocks when it comes to spam filtering. I wouldn't recommend Google for high availabilty and performance, but if you've got the too much spam blues, Google can take that headache off your hands. The perpetual battle against spam isn't something we want to devote extensive resources to beyond a few sensible, easy to implement measures.
Re: (Score:2)