That's 99.97 for the last *month*. Which is ridiculous, 9s for most services use...

andrewcooke · on June 15, 2012

if you have a year of 99.97 months, don't you have a 99.97 year? how does having a shorter time make the numbers look better?

[edit: i realise they could be hiding worse months, but i don't think that's what the post i am replying to meant. perhaps i am reading it wrong.]

veemjeem · on June 15, 2012

They could have done it to the extreme -- show the numbers for the past hour. Then they could almost always report 100% uptime. And if they ever went down, wait an hour, then go back to reporting 100% uptime again.

hboon · on June 15, 2012

They could have terrible uptime 2 months ago and you wouldn't see it in their status page, because it only showed last month's.

jaggederest · on June 15, 2012

Parent post was saying that, without taking into account the entire year, you can have one month that is terrible and the rest quite good.

The measurement in question is supposed to be about consistency.

mparlane · on June 15, 2012

Depends on the month...

31 versus 28 days.

alaithea · on June 15, 2012

It doesn't matter whether gauged by the month or year. It's a percentage. If they have 99.97% uptime every month for a year, they'll still have 99.97% uptime for the year.

wmf · on June 15, 2012

Or if they have 100% for six months and then 99.97% for one month the long-term average would be better.