Skip to main content

Availability & SLA’s – Simple Rules

From theDailyWtf, a story about availability & SLA’s that’s worth a read about an impossible availability/SLA conundrum. It’s a good lead in to a couple of my rules of thumb.

“If you add a nine to the availability requirement, you’ll add a zero to the price.”

In other words, to go from 99.9% to 99.99% (adding a nine to the availability requirement), you’ll increase the cost of the project by a factor of 10 (adding a zero to the cost).

There is a certain symmetry to this. Assume that it’ll cost 20,000 to build the system to support three nines, then:

99.9 = 20,000
99.99 = 200,000
99.999 = 2,000,000

The other rule of thumb that this brings up is

Each technology in the stack must be designed for one nine more than the overall system availability.

This one is simple in concept. If the whole system must have three nines, then each technology in the stack (DNS, WAN, firewalls, load balancers, switches, routers, servers, databases, storage, power, cooling, etc.) must be designed for four nines. Why? ‘cause your stack has about 10 technologies in a serial dependency chain, and each one of them contributes to the overall MTBF/MTTR. Of course you can over-design some layers of the stack and ‘reserve’ some outage time for other layers of the stack, but in the end, it all has to add up.

Obviously these are really, really, really rough estimates, but for a simple rule of thumb to use to get business units and IT work groups thinking about the cost and complexity of providing high availability, it’s close enough. When it comes time to sign the SLA, you will have to have real numbers.

Via The Networker Blog

More thoughts on availability, MTTR and MTBF:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Cargo Cult System Administration

“imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance” --Wikipedia During and after WWII, some native south pacific islanders erroneously associated the presence of war related technology with the delivery of highly desirable cargo. When the war ended and the cargo stopped showing up, they built crude facsimiles of runways, control towers, and airplanes in the belief that the presence of war technology caused the delivery of desirable cargo. From our point of view, it looks pretty amusing to see people build fake airplanes, runways and control towers  and wait for cargo to fall from the sky.The question is, how amusing are we?We have cargo cult science[1], cargo cult management[2], cargo cult programming[3], how about cargo cult system management?Here’s some common system administration failures that might be ‘cargo cult’:Failing to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient. A daily backup is necessary, b…

Ad-Hoc Verses Structured System Management

Structured system management is a concept that covers the fundamentals of building, securing, deploying, monitoring, logging, alerting, and documenting networks, servers and applications. Structured system management implies that you have those fundamentals in place, you execute them consistently, and you know all cases where you are inconsistent. The converse of structured system management is what I call ad hoc system management, where every system has it own plan, undocumented and inconsistent, and you don't know how inconsistent they are, because you've never looked.

In previous posts (here and here) I implied that structured system management was an integral part of improving system availability. Having inherited several platforms that had, at best, ad hoc system management, and having moved the platforms to something resembling structured system management, I've concluded that implementing basic structure around system management will be the best and fastest path to …

The Cloud – Provider Failure Modes

In The Cloud - Outsourcing Moved up the Stack[1] I compared the outsourcing that we do routinely (wide area networks) with the outsourcing of the higher layers of the application stack (processor, memory, storage). Conceptually they are similar:
In both cases you’ve entrusted your bits to someone else, you’ve shared physical and logical resources with others, you’ve disassociated physical devices (circuits or servers) from logical devices (virtual circuits, virtual severs), and in exchange for what is hopefully better, faster, cheaper service, you give up visibility, manageability and control to a provider. There are differences though. In the case of networking, your cloud provider is only entrusted with your bits for the time it takes for those bits to cross the providers network, and the loss of a few bits is not catastrophic. For providers of higher layer services, the bits are entrusted to the provider for the life of the bits, and the loss of a few bits is a major problem. The…