So are we saying that MS servers are just inherently unstable?
I don't think so but no one has said which hosting service GameDev.net uses.
So are we saying that MS servers are just inherently unstable?
[font=arial, sans-serif]I have reviewed ticket number 3059161 in full. From reading the ticket[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]history, it does appear that Rob had taken care to ensure that your instance[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]was returned to an up and running state as soon as possible. I would also like[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]to assure you that the issues which took place in that ticket are not typical[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]for our servers.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]However, the initial technician who handled your request to perform the fsck[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]did in fact neglect to run a fresh backup of the server prior to doing this.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]This may have been due to there being a backup image from January 5th and he[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]may have assumed you would not want to have a fresh backup image created with[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]a corrupted filesystem. [/font][font=arial, sans-serif]
There is also the possibility that attempting to[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]create a backup image prior to the fsck would have caused more harm than good.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]Likewise, it appears from the logs that the backup which was created on the[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]6th failed due to the raid failur[/font][font=arial, sans-serif]
e. This then lead to loss of data on your end[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]from the 6th and needing to restore from the 5th, where it may have been[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]possible to salvage data from a backup had it been created prior to the fsck[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]being run. In a situation such as this, it is always best to receive[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]clarification though and I assure you this will be addressed and corrected.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]In regards to the redundancy which we have in place for our servers, we[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]do have a raid 10 on the parent server for the partition where customer data[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]is stored, which means a few disks could fail before causing major issues in[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]the array. We also have our servers setup so that backups and images are[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]stored on seperate servers in case there are failures with the hardware or the[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]raid setup of the originating parent server.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]One particular issue that arose, which did not help the situation, occurred[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]when your server was first restored to the new parent. It appears that the[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]instance was still active on the old parent as well and network traffic was[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]primarily being routed to the old parent. At this time, are you still[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]experiencing further issues in regards to this? If so, I would be more than[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]happy to get them resolved for you.[/font]
[/quote]
Here is the full explanation from our provider of the events that transpired:
[font=arial, sans-serif]I have reviewed ticket number 3059161 in full. From reading the ticket[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]history, it does appear that Rob had taken care to ensure that your instance[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]was returned to an up and running state as soon as possible. I would also like[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]to assure you that the issues which took place in that ticket are not typical[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]for our servers.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]However, the initial technician who handled your request to perform the fsck[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]did in fact neglect to run a fresh backup of the server prior to doing this.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]This may have been due to there being a backup image from January 5th and he[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]may have assumed you would not want to have a fresh backup image created with[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]a corrupted filesystem. [/font][font=arial, sans-serif]
There is also the possibility that attempting to[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]create a backup image prior to the fsck would have caused more harm than good.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]Likewise, it appears from the logs that the backup which was created on the[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]6th failed due to the raid failur[/font][font=arial, sans-serif]
e. This then lead to loss of data on your end[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]from the 6th and needing to restore from the 5th, where it may have been[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]possible to salvage data from a backup had it been created prior to the fsck[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]being run. In a situation such as this, it is always best to receive[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]clarification though and I assure you this will be addressed and corrected.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]In regards to the redundancy which we have in place for our servers, we[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]do have a raid 10 on the parent server for the partition where customer data[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]is stored, which means a few disks could fail before causing major issues in[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]the array. We also have our servers setup so that backups and images are[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]stored on seperate servers in case there are failures with the hardware or the[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]raid setup of the originating parent server.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]One particular issue that arose, which did not help the situation, occurred[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]when your server was first restored to the new parent. It appears that the[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]instance was still active on the old parent as well and network traffic was[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]primarily being routed to the old parent. At this time, are you still[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]experiencing further issues in regards to this? If so, I would be more than[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]happy to get them resolved for you.[/font]
[/quote]
Yes, that does sound like a fluke but time is the only way to know for sure.
If users feel that the site is going down too often or for too long then they have every right to voice their concerns.
I understand the point of this thread, but I can't shake the feeling that it is an unwarranted slap in the face to the creators of the site. Did you really question investing your time in GDNet? They've already given so much that I feel it is disrespectful to cavil about such a small matter. A matter that they are completely aware of and actively work on everyday.
If you can do it better than them, do it. If you are tired of this site, leave. Otherwise, find something more constructive to comment on.
Yes most downtime by a longshot, its always been thus though, even 10 years ago (ironic since its a computer focused website).