Hacker News Reader

You should read up on the SLA. If you need more assurance than Azure can offer (or any cloud host, since statistically Azure has one of the best uptimes), you shouldn't have tried it in the first place.

I don't know who sold you Azure as a solution to your hosting, but whoever did it didn't take enough time to investigate your case. This comment and your others show that your requirements and architecture aren't a good match for a cloud host.

View on HN

Well we were stuck in this...

http://blogs.gartner.com/kyle-hilgendorf/2012/03/09/azure-ou...

The SLA would have been fine if it was accurate, which it wasn't.

As were we, and MS has learned a lot since then. The SLA has improved and become more strict, and they've improved communications since then. There is still a ways to go, but that's true of all hosts.

It's important to note though that an SLA for any host isn't a strict guarantee. Almost all are set up on the best-effort-with-refunds-if-we-fail principle. They're promises, not hard lines. MS does not have a habit of failing to deliver on their promised number, but like any other host it can happen. These are important things to remember when considering a hosting model.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com