Click here to RSVP to WHIR Events:
New York City - March 25, 2010
Chicago - April 22, 2010
Toronto - May 20, 2010

Recent posts by Joshua:

Meet the new cloud category – Marketplace-as-a-Service (MaaS)

Exploring Cloud SLAs: Amazon vs Rackspace

Cloud research results (part 3 of 3): application test/dev and load spikes top workloads

Cloud research results (part 2 of 3): SMBs, Enterprises, and VARs/SIs are top target markets

Cloud research results (part 1 of 3): lots of interest to offer yet few plans

The mainstream media’s coverage and interest in cloud computing has been an exciting boon to our industry, although I’m not sure if I should laugh or cry every time I see an article mentioning an outage of a notable public cloud. I suppose it’s inevitable that with increased attention comes increased scrutiny and as they say in the newspaper business “if it bleeds it leads” – that seems to be the approach many journalists have taken to covering cloud outages.

The reality is networks crash. Routers and hard drives fail. While all data center operators and hosting/cloud providers take measures to build in various layers or redundancy, outages happen. This has and always will be the case for hosted services. In the end, this is why service level agreements (SLAs) exist and what truly matters is a provider’s transparency, customer service and credits.

To this end, I thought it would be an interesting exercise to compare the two leading infrastructure cloud services SLAs from Rackspace and Amazon. Although this meant coping with flashbacks from the 84-page report I wrote for Tier 1 Research back in 2001 on this very topic comparing the SLAs of the top 20 MSPs of the era, and I found it to be rather illuminating. Here’s a quick reference table:

Key Takeaways:

·         It was quite interesting to see the different approaches taken by the two. On the Cloud Servers side, Rackspace service guarantee of 100% uptime is a long-standing marketer’s tactic, which simply means they will pay for any down time that does occur. Amazon on the other hand has a more realistic guarantee of 99.95%, which actually translates into just over 4.3 hours of non-scheduled downtime a year.

·         The fact that Rackspace specifies a time-to-resolve guarantee and offers credits if it misses speaks to its heritage as a managed hoster first. This is something Amazon can and should put into place.

·         In terms of credits, Amazon caps their credit at 10% per period compared to Rackspace which will ultimately provide 100% credit if it is warranted. Separate but related on Storage, Amazon caps the credit at 25% whereas again Rackspace offers up to 100% if warranted. Again, Rackspace's approach is much more customer-centric.

·         Both Rackspace and Amazon put the burden of an SLA violation notification and credit request on their customer. This would be my biggest critique of both firms’ SLAs. It is something I advocated back in 2001 and nothing has changed: customers are already frustrated by an outage – why make them bear the administrative responsibility to prove the outage existed and chase you down for the credit owed? Other cloud providers may want to consider offering an automated credit function when outages occur (think Orbitz.com if someone books the same room as you at a lower price) as a way to differentiate from the market leaders.

In conclusion, while auto-paying for SLA violations would be an improvement for both Amazon and Rackspace, I also recommend all cloud service providers post their uptime front-and-center on their website. At the end of the day, the credit issued for downtime (even if it was automatic) tends to pale in comparison to the acute frustration and anxiety the customer is experiencing. Ultimately, the best SLA would be “our CEO will fly to your office personally to explain what happened” but we all know that just isn’t scalable.

Source Links

http://www.rackspacecloud.com/legal/sla  

http://aws.amazon.com/ec2-sla/

http://aws.amazon.com/s3-sla/