-- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] Considering that STEAM is now a revenue generating service, my bet is Valve will sort this out sooner rather than later, especially since they are now responsible to not only their own games anymore but to a lot of other Game Developers as well.
On 12/20/06, Newbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -- > [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > One thing constantly being missed is that section C of paragraph 9 of > Steam > Subscriber agreement which every one of us agreed to states that: > > VALVE DOES NOT GUARANTEE CONTINUOUS, ERROR-FREE, VIRUS-FREE OR SECURE > OPERATION AND ACCESS TO STEAM, THE STEAM SOFTWARE, YOUR ACCOUNT AND/OR > YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS(S). > > It means we all agreed with the fact that we can not demand Valve to > support > Steam at all. The fact that Valve restored the service reasonably quick > means they don't want to loose customers and profit but does not mean they > had obligations towards us to do so. > > Another thing that should be considered is overall network downtime > throughout the year. What was that? less than 12 hours overall? Meaning > availability is about 99.8%... Not the best figure for mission critical > application but pretty much reasonable for gaming services. > > Regards, > Newbie > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <hlds@list.valvesoftware.com> > > Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 7:36:13 -0600 > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Post-outage thoughts > > > > > All of these post on this subject and still NOTHING FROM VALVE!! Any bets > on > what their gonna do? My moneys on nothing.... > > > > > > From: "Edward Luna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date: 2006/12/19 Tue AM 07:18:14 CST > > > To: <hlds@list.valvesoftware.com> > > > Subject: RE: RE: RE: Re: [hlds] Post-outage thoughts > > > > > > Very well said Frazer, as always. However, I'm obligated to point out, > whatever fault tolerance Valve may or may not have built in... it was > insufficient for this event. Until we are informed to the contrary by > Valve, we must conclude that they were not geographically redundant... > furthermore, to assume they considered a wide-spread power outage in the > Northwest "not very probable" does not bode well for their level of fault > tolerance analysis. We needn't wonder if their plan would work, we know > it > failed. The salient question to be answered now is "do they intend to > bring > their redundancy inline with the need" and if not... will their customers > accept that position? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Frazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 7:43 AM > > > To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com > > > Subject: RE: RE: RE: Re: [hlds] Post-outage thoughts > > > > > > > > > Whether or not a service provider chooses to deploy redundant services > is > a > > > decision that is generally made as part of an overall risk-management > > > analysis. Factors such as probability of component failure, business > impact > > > and cost are weighed in reaching a decision as to how much money a > provider > > > should (and can afford) to invest in redundant service elements. While > a > > > systemic power outage is a possibility, it may not be very probable. In > > > fact, there is every likelihood that service elements which would be > > > affected by such a wide outage are not all within Valve's control. We > have > > > no information regarding Valve's service infrastructure, but we might > assume > > > that it includes fault-tolerant elements (e.g. clustered servers, > redundant > > > network paths, etc.) which have been chosen to provide protection from > more > > > probable outages (for example, individual hardware failures, network > outage > > > of a given carrier). > > > > > > Given the funding resources to do so, most service providers would > eagerly > > > embrace "geographic redundancy". However, no business has unlimited > > > financial resources and in the end, Valve has to strike a balance > between > > > cost and risk, in delivering its services. Valve has an obligation to > its > > > investors to make balanced spending decisions and deliver sustainable > > > profitability as much as it needs to deliver reasonable service levels > to > > > its customers. As well, the cost of complete redundancy would almost > > > certainly have to be borne in the price of the product. While the > end-user > > > impact was certainly real, it is not, after all, an air traffic control > > > system. last night, our servers were full again. > > > > > > I think Valve did a respectable job in restoring services in a timely > > > fashion. No doubt they were extremely motivated to do so. It appeared > to > > > me that they followed a prioritized approach, first restoring services > > > critical to supporting game-play. While this simply may have been a > sequence > > > imposed by the situation, versus any kind of altruistic service policy, > the > > > net effect was the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Tuttle > > > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 4:23 PM > > > To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com > > > Subject: RE: RE: RE: Re: [hlds] Post-outage thoughts > > > > > > Such redundancy is Networking 101 and Programming 101... You can choose > to > > > ignore it if you like... But in the real word it is fact . > > > > > > Valve is probably making enough money to make it reasonable for them to > > > invest in a redundant system for that "money making" aparatus. That is > > > Economics 101. You think it looks good to investors that the "backbone" > of > > > the system went down for the entire world because of one geological > > > disaster? You think that's a good selling point for software developers > > > that want to bring their product to market? 273,468 game players > couldn't > > > play because Valve had all their eggs in that one "geographical" basket. > > > Wise business decision? You decide... > > > > > > Ok maybe they are 500 level courses but you still get the point :D > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 2:57 PM > > > > To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com > > > > Subject: RE: RE: RE: Re: [hlds] Post-outage thoughts > > > > > > > > All I'm seeing is whining, pettiness, and monday morning > > > > quarterbacking. > > > > > > > > Lets try this. If anyone out there has a diagram of the > > > > Valve infrastructure, and a complete understanding of who > > > > they contract with for what services and facilities, then lets see it. > > > > > > > > I only am reading people bitching about what Valve should > > > > have done over the last 10 years, and "I could do it better", > > > > without any reguard or perspective on what the real world > > > > impact things may be having in the Seattle area. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > [http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds] > -- > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > -- _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
