Re: O2 Hoster down ?

["mark_harrison_uk2" <mph@xxxxxxx>]

I guess, as Gerard says, it depends on the nature of the site.

For a transactional site, the ONLY defintion that typically matters=20
to the client is "can this site take customers' credit card details=20
securely"...

... everything else, like "showing them something that makes them=20
want to hand over their credit card details" is a subsidiary step
to=20
that.

For ascentium.co.uk - my own company's, static, informational web-
site, then frankly O2hoster is good enough.

For some of the big sites I've been responsible for, a budget of=20
=A310k / month isn't enough to guarantee 100% availability of a complex=20
transactional site.

Regards,

Mark


> > > getting a great deal of redundancy, (especially with
e-mail=20
> > and dns),
> > > but it wont give you 100%, for example:
> >=20
> > I guess it all depends what you define 100% to be. Personally
I'd=20
want
> > the public face of my organisation (ie the website) to be=20
available
> > 24/7. The $250 per month solution would provide it.
> >=20
> > MDaemon will support redirection of POP so you could get 100%=20
with a
> > little tweaking. If I wanted to be 100% sure I'd have backup
DNS=20
and
> > email on two ADSL lines as well. I think that would certainly=20
provide
> > blanket 100% coverage and also allow for the odd DNS/email
that=20
misses
> > the primary servers.
> >=20
> > All I was trying to prove is that you could effectively get 100%
> > availability for $250 per month. And those machines could be
used=20
to
> > provide services for let's say 20 clients. 20 clients paying=20
> > $12.50 per
> > month for 100% availability sounds good to me.
> >=20
>=20
> Your points are certainly valid, I was more referring to it in the
> 'corporate' sense in which you'd mentioned it possibly being=20
sellable,
> our customers tend to count 100% as 100% dead, so we need to ensure=20
that
> as little problems happen as possible.